|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted April 30, 2008 12:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Exactly. As technology advances, we become more productive. The real price of a chicken, for instance, has fallen dramatically since 1900. Back then, the average American worker would almost have to work until lunch to earn his or her lunch. But now, it only takes about half an hour of work to earn lunch. We have become more productive, and thus have a better life.
Yes, because nowadays chicken don't live their lives on small farms and it is not that expensive to get them to shelves at the Supermarkets. Because they are bred on gages, where they are not allowed to do anything but grow as fat as possible, denied from their every natural insticnt of movement so they will stay as juicy as possible. That is this "progress" that you idolise. Wow. How good for us. 
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 12:39 AM |
|
Edited by executor at 00:40, 30 Apr 2008.
|
mvass took a little embarassing example  . I agree that 'factory' chicken are horrible, I never buy those, I'd rather pay 50% more for a farm one.
Better one is that making a modern car, which is worth more than 30 years ago (in real terms, not monetary!), uses faaaaaar less energy, but as well material losses in the whole production process are significantly lesser (at metalworks level ore is better processed).
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 12:47 AM |
|
|
Personally, I don't like chicken, whether factory chicken or not. But that's beside the point. The thing is, that both production techniques have improved (making each chicken easier to produce) and we have become more productive (making the chicken easier to exchange for our labor).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 01:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Personally, I don't like chicken, whether factory chicken or not. But that's beside the point. The thing is, that both production techniques have improved (making each chicken easier to produce) and we have become more productive (making the chicken easier to exchange for our labor).
And obviously you missed my point that it is disgusting to idolise such an "improved technique". We are still talking about life, but obviously it is unworthy life to you and considered purely as a product. Animals have mental disorders too, and those are mostly found on these "factory animals"*. But I guess those are just side effects of the product, it is not like they suffer or anything... oh wait, they do suffer horribly. Not only physically, but mentally as well. But that is perfectly moral, because they are not human (sarcastic)
*Neurobiologist Juha Laurén, Yale University
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 01:17 AM |
|
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 01:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They are not people. They are things. They are food.
Nothing to say, I just felt the need to quote this.
That's all.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 01:25 AM |
|
|
THEY ARE FOOD AND I WILL FEAST UPON THEIR FLESH!!!! 
Seriously, though, we raise them to be food. We force-feed them. They are our property.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 02:09 AM |
|
|
Force-feeding is one another such an appalling sadistic maneuver... I wonder if you would feel anything, if you had to force-feed a duck that is struggling... in panic and in pain... After a while there is just a shell of the animal, scared, but again and again the tubes are coming down at him.. If only he were one of the lucky ones... one of those who choked early in panic to the force-fed matter pushed down his throat...
In my country force-feeding is prohibited by specific laws. In state of California it is illegal too. In whole EU I hope it will soon be as well as act of cruelty against animals (only 5 countries still practice it)
Some day... I wish people who protect these sadistic tendencies will be looked at as badly as slavery defenders of that era. 
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 02:37 AM |
|
|
MVas. Hear me out.
We wouldn't be here without the planet. We would die of hunger if it weren't for that food. But the planet, and the food... They exist anyway. With or without us, they'd still be here.
We depend on them.
They created us.
We are their property.
The chickens and us. We evolved from the same species that came out of the ocean and decided to stay on dry land for some reason. They are our cousins.
We don't own each other. Earth owns both of us. We just eat each other in order to survive.
The world may be a cold and unforgiving place, and the laws of nature are such that you eat whoever you can catch in order to survive. But that's the thing, we are all equal in that race. We just have different means of feeding tools. Some have claws, some have tusks, some have brains.
Or at least that's the way it was in the beginning. Now, it appears that brains were the way to go. So we were able to outfight most other species and impose ourself on others in order to ensure our own survival. And that's alright, to an extent. That's natural.
But now that we're there, we have to ask ourselves... Now that we hold all this in our hands, that we've evolved to this point, that the fate of all other living beings is ours, that our possibilities are huge and options countless... Where now? The crossroads stands before us. Will we be beneficial, caring leaders or brutal, cruel overlords?
We discovered emotions. We discovered spiritual values. Hope. Sense of freedom. Mercy. Love. And we comprehend many laws of physics, chemistry, biology and other sciences.
We could be the caretakers of the planet. Try to make it into a better place. Merge with it and accept it, and nurture the world as it nurtures us. Discover and care to our emotions, learn to understand each other and nature better, try to live at peace with ourselves and the rest of the world. Work on thought, inner and outer peace, individuality, saving our surroundings, do our best to quench our petty battles and conflicts, if nothing else, then for the sheer beauty of it. Discover whole new worlds through science, and comprehend things far beyond the sheer, mindless urge to feed that we transcended long ago.
This road looks far-fetched, hard to reach, long, complex, perhaps even impossible and, most of all, at least for now - largely unknown. And we fear it, because we always fear the unknown. Just like we were afraid of starting to walk solely on our back legs, or light the first fire. We can work on surpassing our fear and undertaking the adventure of further, enhanced evolution...
Or we can take the easier road. The simple, material road, that looks so wonderful, familiar and comfy that it just seems unreasonable to get off it.
The road that will eventually turn us (and already started turning us) into a mindless, selfish race that, once it reached the pinnacle of its evolution, was unable to do anything but continue mechanically feeding and breeding and quickly devolve up to the point where we'd just spend ourselves and our surroundings, incapable of understanding its wondrousness or anything but our own primal urges. Our lust, wish to expand, and reckless exploitation of everything around us would probably lead us to new forms of scientific discoveries, and we, or those chosen to rule the rest of the mindless hive-like majority, would use them to enslave and instill fear in each others further, when there is nothing and no one else left. Everything bound to profit, our "evolved" version of basic food, we'd bathe in the illusion of our advancements and think we are far superior to anyone, rulers of everything, infallible in our perfection. When we run out of materials on this world, we would, at the best scenario, move to another, and dwell on in hells we create for ourselves for eternity, endlessly, without any purpose, hopelessly feeding and breeding, for it would be everything we can do.
We can go either way. To me, it seems we already made quite a few steps along the second one, but as the "Stairway to Heaven" lyrics say, "there's still time to change the road you're on". Perhaps we find the middle, but that is probably the hardest of all. Sooner or later, we will have to fully undertake one way or the other.
The question is only, which one will we want to take.
Right, I needed to share all that with someone  Now I can go to sleep.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 04:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We depend on them.
As time passes and technology improves, we depend on them less and less.
Quote:
We are their property.
We most certainly aren't. Things can't own property.
That was an excellently written bit, Baklava, and hard to disagree with. We shouldn't strangle ourselves. We should have better vision and use our knowledge wisely. We shouldn't despoil the environment. We should live in peace, and not take things that we want by force. We should advance wisely and well, with both the present and future in mind; so that future generations will not suffer because of our mistakes, but will lead better lives.
But you are wrong. These two paths are not necessarily in conflict. We can achieve the results of the first while following the path of self-interest.
Think about it. We teach our children to help others, and that it's good to help. Thus, they'll want to help. We'll teach them to reason, and to reject any claim that is harmful to this ideal society. We teach them to advance and not sit in one place. And we teach them that advancements make you respected, and the successful should be respected and emulated. At the same time, we should build a good image of a successful person: one with stable personal relationships, striving for a better life, and moderately altruistic. At the same time, we'll use capitalism to benefit humanity. Poor countries will become richer with education and jobs provided by capitalism. With education (which will be placed on a very high pedestal), parents' time will become more valuable, so they'll have less children, thus using less resources. We'll teach the children to propel themselves forward, to use their skills to become richer (though we'll teach them that money isn't everything), and, at the same time, benefit the world. We'll research nuclear fusion, getting our energy needs from the most common element in the universe: hydrogen. We'll research technology to replace mass unskilled labor. And we will trade with all peoples, and this interdependence will decrease the risk of war. We'll build a world high in human capital, and it will be a much better world. And capitalism will help us get there. Because with capitalism, self-interest helps both parties. But we should teach our children the true nature of the world, so that they don't turn to mystical explanations for it. Feelings are chemical reactions, but that doesn't make them any less important. Free will is an illusion, but an important one, and we can act as if we had one. And we should genetically modify ourselves so that we would need less resources, and be smarter and stronger. Why be human if we can be more?
But first, we have to get rid of this corrupted form of materialism, this instant gratification. Too often these days, the problem isn't that people are self-interested, but it's that they're not self-interested wisely. Sure, it might feel good to go to a party and get high, but that won't get you far in life. But if we seek to maximize our utility, we won't do that. And it'll benefit others at the same time it benefits us.
There are two social problems today. One, that people demand instant gratification, evenn though it would often be better to delay consumption. Today, too many people, when faced with a choice of jam today or two jams tomorrow, choose jam today. We spend our money on things we don't use, and don't invest in the economy. America has a negative savings rate. We could invest in the stock market or in education, but too many spend it on gang tatoos and flashy cars that lose half their value in one year.
The other social problem is the way society is currently trying to combat this. It is trying to bring religion into the matter, and it doesn't help. "Don't be materialistic or God will smite you!" they say. While they're attacking the wrong enemy, their own standards are deteriorating. And too often reason is suppressed in all of this.
Thus, what should we as individuals do? I don't know. There's not much that we can do. We can serve as examples, but before we succeed, we will be mocked, and after we succeed, everyone will come and try to mooch off of us. Too few will try to become like us. But who is John Galt?
Society is morally deteriorating, and there's very little that the few decent people who are left can do about it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 10:39 AM |
|
Edited by executor at 10:51, 30 Apr 2008.
|
Quote:
MVas. Hear me out.
We wouldn't be here without the planet. We would die of hunger if it weren't for that food. But the planet, and the food... They exist anyway. With or without us, they'd still be here.
We depend on them.
Fully agree with you here.
Should human race continue to run its technocivilization, nature (or rather wildlife, as we are still still part of nature, difficult as it may be to believe  ) will simply get used to it and adjust itself(as it always has in face of rapid changes), new species will emerge, and once we are not here, spires of our cities will be excellent mountain sites for abundant life .
Quote:
They created us.
No, we evolved from it, by God's will (as I believe), but it was not an act of creation, there was no will in it.
Quote:
We are their property.
Most life is nonsentient (but possibly there are other sentinet species here as well), and as such, it cannot posess anything. Humans included.
Besides, ownership means that you can do with its object whatever you wish (as long as it does not influence others negative way, unless they allow it), so it requires the potential owner to be willing. As to my perception, almost (if not exactly)100% of non-human nature is not willing.
Quote:
The question is only, which one will we want to take.
I'd go for the first one (the nicer ) of what you mentioned, but to be honest, I don't think nature does care about which one we'll choose. Not only that I consider it to be nonsentient, as I metioned before, but even if it was (as a whole), it would not be a problem for it whether 50% of species go extinct or not, or whether the environment is composed of peaks or skyscrapers. Worse tragedies happened to earthly life, and yet it flourishes. And big city is not the weirdest environment that life thrives in.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 10:45 AM |
|
|
People tend to talk about "life" when it comes to eat chicken, cows, lambs, rabbits etc.
I never hear anyone of these talk about "life" when it comes to eat spiders, ants, grashoppers or worms.
Why is that? Do all these people have some kind of ranking when it comes down to which animals may be ok to eat and maybe treated badly?
Is it ok to step onto a group of ants and squash them, while it is to blame killing a chicken "for fun"?
You either count ANY living being on this planet as "life" (be it an animal, a plant or a human) and treat it the same way, or none. But picking out a few and make rankings is just double moral.
Just my 2 cents....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 11:02 AM |
|
|
Humans are the only species capable of killing for spite and out of hate. We torture defensless animals for 'science', and believe that evolution has made us the 'master race'. We waste, and take more then we use, and still don't think it is enough.
Who is the unevolved ones?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 11:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They are not people. They are things. They are food.
I'm... truly speachless...
As Baklava said, I'll just quote this. And if you can't see for yourself what's wrong with this statement, we are done talking.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 11:06 AM |
|
|
Let's start with the easy part, the first two sentences.
We are still as dependent on food as we were thousands of years ago, the point is that now we have easier access to it and also other things to worry about. But basic natural urges will still be there, no matter how much we evolve. That's alright, but we shouldn't keep them in our primal interests.
Secondly, the "things" you refer to are created from the same basic elements and have the same life cycle and build as we do. In fact, similarities are so great that Darwin was able to constitute the theory of evolution simply by observation. We were such "things" once, and we are still "things". You can make an intelligent robot, but he will still be a machine. You can create an excellent AI but it will be a program anyway. Our sentience doesn't change our biological constitution.
On the rest of the post, you propose trying to find a middle path. But look at it... We have been trying to reach that, but it is just hard to function. Poverty, starvation, terrorism, wars for profit, scientific research concentrating on profit above all else, instead of fully helping humanity... If just the billions of dollars spent by countries on military purposes were spent on trying to feed and educate the starving in Africa, there would already be a significant amount of normal living standard in those regions. And that's just one example. But no one did it. Because that was unprofitable.
Like I said, the hardest thing of all is to walk the middle. You cannot fully pursue your material self-interests, and yet fully help the planet. You can just create more money for people who own you. Because no matter what they say, for them you will always be a thing. Food. And it is in their interests to preserve their power, and they can only do it by following the material path. They can tell you that any spiritual and immaterial feeling is but a chemical reaction, and all they can offer you is more consumption in hope that it will make you docile and bring them profit at the same time. They actually want the society to, as you correctly noted, morally deteriorate.
So if most people want to walk wherever the superiors tell them to, and they are ruled by those who drag them to the material path, the world will walk toward the material path.
But if people would see the benefits of walking the first one, wonders beyond materialism, those who rule them would be forced to change their views at least toward the middle path, and the middle path is more or less acceptable if we're careful and make it function the way it should. But that is the most complicated road to achieve of all, it would require much effort and, most of all, knowing the fragile nature of the human mind, it would hold a constant risk for us to prevail back to the completely material path.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 11:12 AM |
|
|
Surely longlasting torture is a lot different than squashing a spider Angelito.
And yes there is a difference in what different animals can endure. If their sensory organs are higly sophisticated, so as they suffer greatly when injured. Dolphins for example... Hunters often wound some of the members intentionally. Guess why? Because Dolpins never abandon wounded family members... so their "emotions" can be used against them. That is just to draw the distinction from insects who for example usually grow back any parts they loose when they shed their skin. That however, doesn't justify mistreatment of them either. But there are no factories of spiders that in which they are tortured at constantly, so as of now spiders fortunately get to live their lives at their natural habitat.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 01:16 PM |
|
|
No matter what you say Mvass, there are still choices we have at our disposal. We're either good or evil, evolved or primitive.
And obviously choosing the materialistic path is as primitive as it gets, whether you agree or not -- I think viruses and other, very very primitive organisms, do that. So basically we're as primitive as it gets, and also evil, by that definition.
You see, when you are given chances, and you choose the 'bad' path (you know what I'm talking about), then you're either good or evil, the choice defines you. No ambiguity around here.
But I'm obviously not adding anything new to this discussion. I hope aliens some day teach us a lesson (not with force, because that's exactly the primitive human's weapon).
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 01:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Surely longlasting torture is a lot different than squashing a spider Angelito.
There is no question about that, and I hope u didn't think of me having a different opinion about that.
Quote:
And yes there is a difference in what different animals can endure. If their sensory organs are higly sophisticated, so as they suffer greatly when injured. Dolphins for example... Hunters often wound some of the members intentionally. Guess why? Because Dolpins never abandon wounded family members... so their "emotions" can be used against them. That is just to draw the distinction from insects who for example usually grow back any parts they loose when they shed their skin. That however, doesn't justify mistreatment of them either. But there are no factories of spiders that in which they are tortured at constantly, so as of now spiders fortunately get to live their lives at their natural habitat.
Everything you say is obviously true, but maybe I have put my idea in wrong words. I didn't talk about the way till those animals die, but the fact they are dead.
We kill and eat cows, what people from india can't understand. On the other hand, asian folks eat grasshoppers, apes, dogs, cats etc..., which western cultures can't understand. At the end, all of them animals are dead and get eaten. Some of them treated "ok" while getting caught and stored, and others were tortured.
While we (western) people have a great barbeque with great meat on the grill and kids running around in the garden, no one thinks for a second on how this cow died and how it spent its last days before it got slaughtered.
Show the same people ONE video of how asian cooks slaughter a kitten in a restaurant, they will start a demonstration on the streets against asian cooks, or even the whole asian folks.
So all I wanted to point out is, u either have to respect ALL kind of animals, or none.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 02:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Humans are the only species capable of killing for spite and out of hate.
It's wrong for us to do so.
Quote:
We torture defensless animals for 'science', and believe that evolution has made us the 'master race'.
I don't believe that evolution has made us the "master race". I believe that evolution has made us ourselves. And we should be self-interested.
Quote:
Secondly, the "things" you refer to are created from the same basic elements and have the same life cycle and build as we do.
True. But it is not our differences that let us do what we do to them, it is that we are not them.
Quote:
Poverty, starvation,
They exist despite capitalism, not because of it.
Quote:
terrorism, wars for profit
Terrorism has complicated causes. Wars for profit are indeed wrong.
Quote:
scientific research concentrating on profit
There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, think about all the medicines that were developed with profit in mind. And yet they have a great benefit.
Quote:
But no one did it. Because that was unprofitable.
We should be more interdependent. Then there would be less wars, as they would become less profitable. And it is profitable to invade a country and take its resources. And, at the same time, this is not capitalist. This is corporatist. Captialism is based on volountary exchange and property rights; under capitalism, you can't just take something that belongs to somebody else.
Quote:
You cannot fully pursue your material self-interests, and yet fully help the planet.
Yes, you can. Why not? What we may be confusing here is basic material self-interest (as in owning a lot of stuff and trying to get the most money) and enlightened self-interest (where people get pleasure from altruism as well, and know when to delay consumption). And capitalism is arranged so that for us to make a profit, we have to benefit someone.
Quote:
You can just create more money for people who own you.
No one owns anybody except for slaves. And workers are not slaves. They are free to leave. I know that someone will say "Free to starve!" But look at it this way. In capitalism, people are rewarded according to what they do. Under socialism, people are given stuff simply for being. The money is taken from the successful and those who actually work and is given to welfare queens and bums.
Quote:
They actually want the society to, as you correctly noted, morally deteriorate.
If they are as stupid as to want that, then they are morally deteriorating too. It is not in their interest to see society decline, because if it declines, then they won't have anything left.
Quote:
We're either good or evil, evolved or primitive.
There are no objective values of good and evil. To use your favorite argument, it's subjective. In general, good = anything that helps society, and evil = anything that harms it. And enlightened self-interest can help society.
Humans are naturally self-interested. It is far easier to turn that self-interest into a direction useful for society than to try to change human nature.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 30, 2008 02:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There are no objective values of good and evil. To use your favorite argument, it's subjective. In general, good = anything that helps society, and evil = anything that harms it. And enlightened self-interest can help society.
Actually there are objective definitions. What you said is not a good/evil for humans, it's for society. I.e a good society or a bad society.
When you are given a chance to choose -- and you choose one of them, it's what makes you good and evil. What so subjective about that? Well yes technically you can claim that evil is good and good is evil, but you can't claim that both are neutral or both are the same. It's simple: the choices you made are different. It's what makes you either good or evil by the definition.
Quote:
Humans are naturally self-interested.
Yep, it's a primitive thing, you know, cave men had it too
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
