The more aware of pain and suffering you as a concept the worse the pain and suffering is. Bugs donít suffer as much as a dolphin can as an example. If you canít contemplate death or pain beyond instinct then I think its a lot easier to accept death and pain. Cows for example suffer immensely when they know they are going to be slaughtered. But if you separate them, do it behind closed doors and make sure they canít anticipate being slaughtered they are less upset. Death being instant, there is no time for them to suffer.
Iíd argue that some Down Syndrome people suffer less as well, because some are often ignorant to the horrible things around them.
Perhaps IQ is not a factor, but certainly awareness which is tied in someways to IQ.
The criteria for which animals can suffer is essentially whether we can anthropomorphize them or not. If you don't see animal x as being human-like then sorry, it's f*cked. Never mind that honey bees are able to perform complex calculations, develop their own problem solving skills and even distinguish between different human faces. This makes them more intelligent than some mammals, even if we erroneously give human traits to those mammals.
[marches around the RMB with "Entropy Kills!" picket sign]
I suppose seeking the assistance of qualified professionals to deal with anxeity or related issues is part of "growing up." I can see how my specific phrasing might have seemed dismissive, but I stand by the general notion. Speaking as someone who's done the panic attack thing at work/in public more than once.
An Internet quiz!
No, no, food, people suck, rubber and leather, cool, yes, ok/probably not replaced, no, yes (like almost everyone else in the industrialized "first world"), crap, probably don't/mine doesn't/true but not entirely relevant, great, depends, probably not.
I've found hosting a vegan/vegetarian meal to be highly effective in at least convincing people they won't immediately die. A lot of the time, they actually like it. Although I'm just following Isa Chandra's recipe's most of the time.
Cats and dogs have been accepted into the human social group, originally for their utility (hunting, guarding, killing pests, etc). At no point hundreds of thousands of years ago did cows start following humans around while providing precisely the same utility, so that particular variety of domestication didn't occur. It probably helps that cats and dogs are socially sophisticated in a way that cows are not, which is to say that humans, cats, and dogs don't herd in precisely the same way cows do.
Of course, if avoiding unnecessary suffering on the part of any animal capable of experiencing it is ethically important, then none of this is particularly relevant.
Intelligence and suffering are tangentially related, at best. Again, we can go to certain IRL trolley problems to demonstrate that it can be ethically permissible to favor one individual/group over another, even if both are equally intelligent.
Don't confuse sapience with sentience. Such confusion is probably the origin of speciesism.
IQ is racist and economically tone-deaf statistical chicanery that needs to go away.
More likely, it whether the animal in question can be reasonably expected to experience pain, anticipate it, and take active measures to avoid it. The ability to anticipate and prepare for future eventualities helps.
Such non-humans share characteristics with humans, sure, but that's not particularly surprising given how evolution works.
Of course some non-human animals share traits with humans, like the ability to walk on two legs or to communicate verbally, but this doesn't mean we should attribute human motivation, characteristics or behaviour to those animals in a way that we don't for animals that do not walk on two legs or do not communicate verbally. My point was that if a non-human animal doesn't look or behave in a way that's familiar (human-like) to us then we value their suffering less by default regardless of the factors you mention.
We might be talking past each other, but I wouldn't attribute human motivations etc. to non-humans either. I'd simply posit that recognizing that non-humans can have their own motivations and cognitions does not mean we are "anthropomorphizing" so much as we are simply recognizing animal behavior.
If that behavior includes the ability to hold preferences and suffer for their loss, then concluding that non-humans are due ethical consideration is not that great a leap.
I think we're in agreement here. My point is just that we don't live in an ideal world and research shows that due ethical consideration isn't handed out on a scientific basis but on a basis that's tainted with human prejudice. For example, giving dogs human characteristics (like "he/she is a good listener") makes people more invested in the dogs' safety and welfare compared to when the dogs' behaviour is described accurately. This might be beneficial because it tells us how we can encourage people to care for animals but it also shows that if we can't see a particular animal's behaviour through a human lens then our bias denies that animal due ethical consideration for no legitimate reason.
My apologies! I assure you my intentions were strictly to imply the opposite - that people who are statistically likely to not live forever are also statistically able to become vegetarians.
We have no definitive data regarding whether people who are statistically likely to live forever are able to become vegetarian, but we do think there's a distinct possibility that people who are vegetarian might, at some point, become statistically more likely to live forever, although, again, this is not statistically very likely.
I'd like to just point out that not only are there no vegans who are dead, but moreover that nobody who has never heard of vegans will ever, never die, either. So to be clear, nobody will die. And that's that.
I agree that everything is affected by our human lens but there is no way around that. If you start to look at this from the bottom up you see science does inform the foundation of how we treat animals and then in turn our lens decodes that information. You donít care what happens to rocks right? Because rocks arenít alive and we have a high degree of confidence that rocks are not alive. But why is it that you care more about things that are alive vs. not? Well, because you are alive of course. Why else?
Some of you will find this a ridiculous argument but if agree that all creatures should be treated ethically equally(An ant vs a dog) you will start to run into logical inconsistencies on how you arrived there. There is no difference to prefering Alive to Inert in our ethical standards and prefering animals that have additional human traits. And it would be absurd for me to expect you to treat rocks ethically just in case we simply donít understand them through a human lens.
That being said, I purposefully avoid stepping on ants and bugs even though in some ways its logically inconsistent with what I know. I am nice to my anthropormophic AI devices despite the likelyhood they arenít sentient. But if other people donít do that, I am not sure I can fault them on it. That applies to all animals as well.
The only thing we can hold people accountable to ethically is on things we know.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES! ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ BTW WHO THE HELL IS VOTING HERE AGAINST CONDEMNING LILY?
That looks a little bit illogical to me but I canít say I am surprised though. Apart from raiders themselves, there could be many people who donít like the language of the proposal or who donít even know who are those Lily guys (the name of the region seem nice comparing to, say, The Black Hawks, and not everyone reads proposalsí body).