Can we eliminate predation?

[RandFan]

I think the people in this thread who argue that stopping predation would cause widespread starvation of predators are missing the point. Randfan started this thread because of a discussion he had about technological advancements that make it possible to produce meat through tissue engineering, making it unnecessary to feed predators actual animals.

All I can say is WOW! I'm impressed. Great post.

Thanks,

RandFan

P.S. I was hoping for a critique in the other thread. Looks like I'm on the other side this time and certainly not doing as good a job as you. Not that you necassarily agree with my argument in that thread.

 

[AmateurScientist]

After all, the same can be said of animals suffering from human actions. Humans are just an animal causing suffering to other animals, so if we assume it is immoral for humans to cause such suffering, it is also immoral for other animals to do the same.

I made this same argument in the thread in Politics regarding Vegetarianism, and I was blasted repeatedly and called a "moron" and "morally retarded," among other things.

It's funny how the same message can be received much better in a different forum.

I like scientists better than philosophers (The vegans and vegetarians that are arguing the loudest in that thread are philosophers. They're also being remarkably dogmatic).

AS

 

[El_Spectre]

I made this same argument in the thread in Politics regarding Vegetarianism, and I was blasted repeatedly and called a "moron" and "morally retarded," among other things.

I like the term "morally retarded"! I by No means am calling you that, it's just an odd phrase (especially given the subjective nature of morality).

I wonder how, exactly, an snake is supposed to have a sense of morality about eating a mouse? I'm used to people pushing their morality on others, but this is the first time I've seen it cross species lines.

On a less flighty note... would you be more comfortable eating from the pot-o-meat we finally figure out, kinda, how to make work, or from the naturally grown (and selected) animal? I'm voting for the latter.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I like the term "morally retarded"! I by No means am calling you that, it's just an odd phrase (especially given the subjective nature of morality).

Yeah, it's funny. The poster was a complete a**hole about it too, growing increasingly insulting and obnoxious with each post. I refrained from name calling with him, but I had to bite my tongue. I did my best to mock him, however. After he called me a moron, I responded with "Yay! You've discovered the secret to winning a debate. The first one who calls the other a poopiehead wins."

He responded with some pompous, unresponsive post about how I still was being obtuse and refusing to understand his brilliant points. Bascially, he was a major ******* in that thread. He may just be a major ******* period.

I wonder how, exactly, an snake is supposed to have a sense of morality about eating a mouse? I'm used to people pushing their morality on others, but this is the first time I've seen it cross species lines.

Oh careful, now. When I brought up something similar to that over there, I was scolded by several posters and admonished that other animals are not moral agents and thus not accountable for eating they prey. I responded rhetorically, then why are humans morally accountable for eating foods we crave naturally, including meat? Their response? We can resist our urges and we have a moral duty to do so to alleviate animal suffering. It was a riot.

On a less flighty note... would you be more comfortable eating from the pot-o-meat we finally figure out, kinda, how to make work, or from the naturally grown (and selected) animal? I'm voting for the latter.

Latter too. Ever had simulated crab meat? Sucks. I suspect the same with simulated beef.

AS

 

[El_Spectre]

Oh careful, now. When I brought up something similar to that over there, I was scolded by several posters and admonished that other animals are not moral agents and thus not accountable for eating they prey. I responded rhetorically, then why are humans morally accountable for eating foods we crave naturally, including meat? Their response? We can resist our urges and we have a moral duty to do so to alleviate animal suffering. It was a riot.

I like to hit 'em with "morality is arbitrary, and I only go for pragmatic morals". Freaks 'em out.

I'm not a big seafood fan, but yeah... fake "crab" is weird. I dunno how colored fish is anything like crab.

I'd really like to work Spray Bacon into the debate somehow, but that would just be silly

 

[Batman Jr.]

Alright, here I am to explain myself. The point in my questioning RandFan's assertions of the impossibility of modifying ecosystems is that all of the arguments against ecosystem interference invariably appear to use a worldview which circumscribes itself to the human race's current technological abilities. The truth is that we don't know by what methods we may achieve an artificially produced and carefully controlled ecology when said methods may not yet exist even in speculation.

Originally posted by Earthborn
After all, the same can be said of animals suffering from human actions. Humans are just an animal causing suffering to other animals, so if we assume it is immoral for humans to cause such suffering, it is also immoral for other animals to do the same.

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I made this same argument in the thread in Politics regarding Vegetarianism, and I was blasted repeatedly and called a "moron" and "morally retarded," among other things.

It's funny how the same message can be received much better in a different forum.

I like scientists better than philosophers (The vegans and vegetarians that are arguing the loudest in that thread are philosophers. They're also being remarkably dogmatic).

It's very simple to defuse any perceived cognitive dissonance here if you simply explain that you don't believe in the death penalty—I'm assuming you're trying to go the route that because many think humans should die for murderous behavior, that animals should too. It must further be noted that humans and animals are not equal and they cannot be expected to be held to all of the same standards. Perfect equality between humans and other animals is not required to advance the contention that killing other animals is immoral. All that must be understood is that the negative feelings accompanying the slaughtering of a human which can be experienced empathically also can be viewed to occur in another animal deserving of ethical attention when slaughtering it. An example of this reasoning confined to human social interactions can be found in the ways we treat a baby. It is acknowledged that the baby doesn't possess all of the same capacities as a fully-matured adult, yet it at least appears to possess the same capacity to suffer so that it is therefore considered immoral to kill a baby.

 

[Batman Jr.]

I like to hit 'em with "morality is arbitrary, and I only go for pragmatic morals". Freaks 'em out.

For the most part, it is not. Most all human moral thought uses empathy as its premise. Most differences in moral philosophy can probably be accounted for by logical errors made in applying the universal empathic rule. Mental illness undoubtedly accounts for the remaining discrepancies, but those differences are few and far between.

 

[AmateurScientist]

It's very simple to defuse any perceived cognitive dissonance here if you simply explain that you don't believe in the death penalty—I'm assuming you're trying to go the route that because many think humans should die for murderous behavior, that animals should too. It must further be noted that humans and animals are not equal and they cannot be expected to be held to all of the same standards. Perfect equality between humans and other animals is not required to advance the contention that killing other animals is immoral. All that must be understood is that the negative feelings accompanying the slaughtering of a human which can be experienced empathically also can be viewed to occur in another animal deserving of ethical attention when slaughtering it. An example of this reasoning confined to human social interactions can be found in the ways we treat a baby. It is acknowledged that the baby doesn't possess all of the same capacities as a fully-matured adult, yet it at least appears to possess the same capacity to suffer so that it is therefore considered immoral to kill a baby.

The death penalty has nothing to do with the point. The point is that certain animals are food for humans, just as certain animals are food for other predators.

That you choose to refrain from eating animals carries no more moral weight than my choosing not to eat ice cream for dinner.

You can pretend all day long that humans are magically imbued with a unique obligation to be the stewards of all other animals, but that should be absurd on its face. It is an evolutionary accident that humans developed brains capable of conceiving of morals. That fact does not impose upon humans any obligation to buck our natural diets and eliminate the most nutrient rich source of food for us.

Vegetarian apologetics is tiresome, preachy, and self-righteous. Just stop it. You're just jerking each other off and pissing the rest of us off.

AS

 

[Batman Jr.]

Vegetarian apologetics is tiresome, preachy, and self-righteous. Just stop it. You're just jerking each other off and pissing the rest of us off.

I wouldn't mind you calling me arrogant if only you recognized your own haughtiness in expressing the importance of man over other animals.

You can pretend all day long that humans are magically imbued with a unique obligation to be the stewards of all other animals, but that should be absurd on its face. It is an evolutionary accident that humans developed brains capable of conceiving of morals. That fact does not impose upon humans any obligation to buck our natural diets and eliminate the most nutrient rich source of food for us.

It is a matter of moral consistency. You treat other humans cordially and with respect because of your empathy for them, yet you treat other animals that could be empathized with in much the same way much as you would an inanimate object. Why?

The death penalty has nothing to do with the point. The point is that certain animals are food for humans, just as certain animals are food for other predators.

The animal doesn't have the cognitive capabilities to bring the empathic premise to its correct logical ends. We do. This is, as I've said before in the other thread, a classic case of the bandwagon fallacy.

That you choose to refrain from eating animals carries no more moral weight than my choosing not to eat ice cream for dinner.

One involves killing a being which possibly exhibits the capacity to suffer. Ice cream doesn't involve killing anything.

 

[El_Spectre]

For the most part, it is not. Most all human moral thought uses empathy as its premise. Most differences in moral philosophy can probably be accounted for by logical errors made in applying the universal empathic rule. Mental illness undoubtedly accounts for the remaining discrepancies, but those differences are few and far between.

Heh, I assure you, it is. I don't kill because it doesn't serve my best interests to do so, not because I believe in some cosmic Top Ten list. The more or less universal morals (or, conversely taboos) are all fairly pragmatic... it comes down to "what was good for the tribe is moral".

Even still, you have to buy into that morality. Some of us don't buy all of it

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What I don't understand is that if people want humans to end the immoral act of hunting down and killing food, and they plan on doing this by feeding the predators fabricated meat, how do they expect to find the money to feed all these predators when we can't even afford to feed all of the humans on this planet.

I would be surprised if anyone thinks the problem of predation will be solved before other pesky problems like human aging are solved.

These ideas are something we will get around to in, depending on who you ask, between fifty and two hundred and fifty years.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Is it only predation if teeth are involved?
Do we have to ban bacteriophages too?
And we wouldn't want bacteria eating each other.
How far down the food chain is this nonsense meant to apply?

 

[Wudang]

It is a matter of moral consistency. You treat other humans cordially and with respect because of your empathy for them, yet you treat other animals that could be empathized with in much the same way much as you would an inanimate object. Why?

Perhaps because empathy is an emotional response and not a rational one? I think we should differentiate here between the emotional response of empathy and the rational recognition of animals as feeling creatures in some ways like ourselves. On the basis of that rational recognition we may or may not then experience some degree of empathy.
I certainly empathise with my dog who is a lovely gentle creature yet I would never treat her as I do a human. For one thing it would only confuse her - I am her pack leader and she understands her position in the pack, which emotionally very important to a dog.
We can even empathise with humans in complex ways. I empathise with a colleague as a human being. I fail to empathise with him as a professional as he's a total waste of space who should be marched out the building.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I wouldn't mind you calling me arrogant if only you recognized your own haughtiness in expressing the importance of man over other animals.

Actually, I don't. Man is no more important in the cosmic scheme of things than any other creature who exists, has ever existed, or ever will exist. How's that?

What I don't get is if man is no more important (your word) than any other animals, then why do you assert that he has a greater obligation towards them? Before you answer, please understand I get the moral agent business, but that premise itself is anthropocentric. By definition, it assumes that man is indeed more "important" in that humans have greater responsibilities vis-a-vis other animals. How is your position consistent with itself?

It is a matter of moral consistency. You treat other humans cordially and with respect because of your empathy for them, yet you treat other animals that could be empathized with in much the same way much as you would an inanimate object. Why?

Actually, I do treat other animals I encouter with empathy and respect, at least the ones I am capable of empathizing with. Tricky explained this very well in his thread over in R&P, if you wish to check it out.

I don't feel much empathy for the mosquito pestering me, however, or the spider who bit me last week.

How can you be consistent in your ideals if you feel empathy only for "cute" or "intelligent" animals, but not ones who are royal pains to humans, like termites, for perhaps a better example?

You credibility on this issue would be enhanced by admitting that you don't empathize with parasites or pests and that lack of empathy is inconsistent with your basic premise that mankind must be kind to all the animals.

If you were to do that, then why would your drawing the line at pests and parasites be any more moral than my drawing the line at certain animals that humans having been eating for dinner for thousands of years?

The animal doesn't have the cognitive capabilities to bring the empathic premise to its correct logical ends. We do. This is, as I've said before in the other thread, a classic case of the bandwagon fallacy.

A classic case of anthropocentrism. You are imbuing humans with cosmic significance and obligations that we simply don't have.

One involves killing a being which possibly exhibits the capacity to suffer. Ice cream doesn't involve killing anything.

Neither involves a moral choice if both are on our diets.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

I would be surprised if anyone thinks the problem of predation will be solved before other pesky problems like human aging are solved.

Why is predation a "problem?"

For that matter, why is human aging a "problem?"

These ideas are something we will get around to in, depending on who you ask, between fifty and two hundred and fifty years.

No one can successfully predict social or technological change that far into the future. There are far too many variables to grasp and manipulate, assuming we even could, and we cannot foresee what will happen in the intervening time. Our past record at such attempts is dismal.

AS

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why is predation a "problem?"

It's a problem for the only coherent moral theory I know of, utilitarianism. If you want to be a moral being, want to have a coherent basis for moral judgement, and want to be consistent, I know of no way of getting around the fact that the suffering of entities capable of suffering should be minimised.

For that matter, why is human aging a "problem?"

Because we can't stop it, even if we wanted to. Personally, I'd like to be able to stop it. I won't force such technology on you if you think we would be better off without you though.

No one can successfully predict social or technological change that far into the future. There are far too many variables to grasp and manipulate, assuming we even could, and we cannot foresee what will happen in the intervening time. Our past record at such attempts is dismal.

At specific predictions, sure. Overall, the rate of increase of the rate of increase of our powers as a species is accelerating. It's a matter of centuries at most before the rate of increase tends towards infinity and we hit the limits of what is possible in the universe.

At that point eliminating predation as a source of suffering will almost certainly be trivial.

 

[Soapy Sam]

AS- Human aging is a problem. Take it from one who knows.

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

My well-fed cats repeatedly chased, caught, and released an unfortunate mouse until 3AM last night. After hours of the cats' growling, the mouse's pathetic squeeks, and endless tromping and crashing through the house, I'd have happily paid any price to have my little predators "retrained."

I really should qualify that statement: last night, they were my wife's cats.

 

[AmateurScientist]

AS- Human aging is a problem. Take it from one who knows.

It is to any given individual, but not to the species as a whole. Indeed, it's absolutely necessary for our survival. If none of us aged or died, then we would all suffer the tragedy of starvation. Furthermore, none of us would really want to live forever. The issue has been explored in lots of fiction, and the conclusion everyone seems to reach is that immortality would be living hell.

AS

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is to any given individual, but not to the species as a whole. Indeed, it's absolutely necessary for our survival. If none of us aged or died, then we would all suffer the tragedy of starvation.

Only if we kept reproducing faster than stuff other than aging killed us off. I see absolutely no reason why that has to be the case.

Furthermore, none of us would really want to live forever. The issue has been explored in lots of fiction, and the conclusion everyone seems to reach is that immortality would be living hell.

I would learn how to deal with it. Failing that I'd kill myself. In either case, I don't see any appeal in getting physiologically older than I am now (early thirties).