Skip to main content

View Diary: Thoughts on "Non-Human Persons" (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yeah which is why the whole "no fur no leather no (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfromga, ban nock

    meat" stuff moves me not at all.  plants are alive too.  cause they don't have faces... that doesn't matter?  to me the person making their shelter out of bamboo is as much a killer as the boar hunter.

    so yeah, I don't get the moral aspect of not eating meat.

    even the whole "animals are tortured in pens for your food" thing.  well, if we knew how to ask, what would plants say to being kept indoors in pots?

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:16:35 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Because mammals are conscious (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jfromga

      and plants aren't.  Ultimately, though, technology will allow us to create our own food from molecular feed stocks without ever involving previously living things in the process, so even plants someday won't be part of our food chain.

      •  are we sure (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mallyroyal, Troubadour, USHomeopath

        there are some plants out there that do come mighty interesting things.

        A century ago, as you pointed out, many people wouldn't have granted consciousness or sentience to animals.  We may learn more as we go along.  

        •  We may, but for the moment (0+ / 0-)

          we can only go by current evidence and theory.

          •  we can just decide (0+ / 0-)

            not to be speciests.  Decide that respect for all forms of life should be a priority.   Then we could probably be as good as dolphins.

            •  Holding other species to be morally higher (0+ / 0-)

              than humans is a fantasy.  If we're correct that dolphins are people, then some of them are assholes, and a few are probably psychotic - same as humans.  Our detriments just have a disproportionate impact because of our technology.

              And respect for life in general is not mutually exclusive to developing hierarchies for use in legal matters.  In fact, it's pretty much the only way other species are ever going to have rights.  

              •  you equate human with people (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                which is to be expected.

                But if dolphins are people, it doesn't mean they will be human or suffer from human mental illnesses, or have our morality, or our ability to hide from reality.   I am not sure what passes for 'asshole' behavior with dolphins, but there are probably a few that buck the system in one way or another.

                Just as few dogs are 'psychotic' or 'sociopathic', horses even less so, no reason to think that another animal will have human issues, they will have their own.  

                And for other species to have 'rights' in a system we made up, yes, it will depend on what we are willing to give them.  But that doesn't mean we couldn't learn some respect for life itself for our own betterment.

                And we, the big aggressive brained ones, are probably going to wipe most life out on this planet before we ever learn that, legal rights be damned.

      •  how do you know? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        that's a serious question.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:38:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because the current scientific understanding (0+ / 0-)

          of consciousness requires neurons.  Plants don't have any.  You may say "Well, scientific understanding changes," but that's not a reason to suppose something for which there's no evidence.

          •  sure it is. how could it not be? knowledge isn't (0+ / 0-)

            static.  a breakthrough could happen anytime that changes completely how we think of intelligence.  we both know that.

            the only surety is, like you said, that scientific understanding changes.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:44:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But that's not a basis to suppose something (0+ / 0-)

              for which there is no evidence, anymore than when Creationists cite changing scientific understanding to say, "Well, how do you know that in a hundred years science won't find the Bible true?"

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)

      though I think we owe it to animals to give them as pleasant and comfortable lifestyle as possible even if we do plan to eat them.  We owe it to the planet to use its resources in a nurturing not a destructive way.  Which might mean we give all living things what they need to thrive in their own way, instead of twisting their existence to fit us.

      Of course, there is growing evidence that house cats and dogs domesticated themselves for steady and easy to acquire food, so some creatures and maybe plants even, train us.  Just as plants develop strategies to attract pollinators, maybe they attract humans as a survival strategy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site