Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one belowVanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
In the Light Corner:
In the Dark Corner:
The history of what we call moral progress can for the most part be seen as the history of the substitution of hierarchical visions with presumptions in favor of equality. The recent irruption into the social scene of the animal question is part of this ongoing process--a process that is usually characterized by a direct challenge to the cultural status quo. In fact, in the last few decades, nonhuman animals have been the center of a lively philosophical debate, and many voices have been raised against our current treatment of the members of species other than our own. We routinely use nonhuman animals as mere commodities--we kill them for food, we use them in work and entertainment, we employ them as tools for research of all kinds. In short, we treat them in ways in which we would deem it profoundly unethical to treat human beings. Is this position morally defensible? And, if so, on which grounds? Since behind the present divergence in standards lies a deep-rooted philosophical tradition aiming at the exclusion of nonhuman beings from the protected sphere of ethics, it may be worth considering briefly how we got where we are. - Logos
FIGHT!!
Last week's feelgood tale was new research suggesting there were 3,000 giant pandas left in the wild, twice earlier estimates. So what? If pandas can stand on their own four feet, good. If they cannot, tough. We should stop subsidising them. Pandas are endangered because they are utterly incompetent.
Take their diet. As we all know from the pro-panda propaganda, pandas eat almost exclusively bamboo shoots. What panda apologists ignore is that, though fine as a side dish with Szechuan beef and egg-fried rice, bamboo has so few nutrients that the piebald buffoons have to spend 16 hours a day stuffing themselves with it.
It is like trying to subsist on sugar-coated cardboard.
To shovel twigs into their mouths they use what Big Panda tries to pass off as an opposable thumb but is basically a deformed bone. And ridiculously, given their diet, giant pandas have a short digestive tract suitable for carnivores, not vegetarians, so most of the bamboo they eat goes through undigested.
They are also famously bad at sex. Even in the wild pandas do not mate much, and those in zoos are often so uninterested they have to be shown panda pornography first. Sceptics can look this up on Google.
[...]
China exacts a high diplomatic price for its "panda diplomacy". Even the zoo in Washington DC, famous for its pandas, does not own them but rents them from China for about $1 million a year apiece. Now there's a trade deficit to get het up about. For $1 million you could rent a senator.
Case closed. Pandas are badly designed, undersexed, overpaid and overprotected. They went up an evolutionary cul-de-sac and it is too late to reverse. By cosseting them we are simply rewarding failure.
Pandas are doomed. Let them go. - Gulf News -
The vegans of the animal kingdom....(Anthropocentric, I know)
Peter Singer annoys me for a subtle reason.I think the hormonally charged, force feeding factories are a holocaust, But I don't mind Ted Nugent. Nature is red, in tooth and claw, both the fittest and the less fit are equally likely to perish trough plain bad luck. We buy our ticket and we take our chances.
Like the zoroastrians, I want my body fed to the crows and magpies. In India a Jain won't step on an ant, must slow you down.What if the sperm whales tired of calamari, and developed a taste for sushi...Gojira would need to intervene.
My favorite Gahan Wilson cartoon from the olde days Playboy showed a big game fisherman at the rod on the back of a marlin boat, in large letters accrss the stern was the name 'REVENGE'. The fisherman is saying,'Captain, why do you call this boat the REVENGE? Behind him, removing a full body disguise, was the Creature from the Black Lagoon. -
- CommentAuthorjennyology
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2006 edited
"The history of what we call moral progress can for the most part be seen as the history of the substitution of hierarchical visions with presumptions in favor of equality. "
OK... fair enough.
"So what?"
Another poignant argument.
"The recent irruption into the social scene of the animal question is part of this ongoing process--a process that is usually characterized by a direct challenge to the cultural status quo."
RECENT? Are they kidding? Which social scene are we talking about? Because, it seems to me, we'd be hard-pressed to find a set of religious or other shared set of moral constraints that was totally bereft of a 'nature/animal' code. The animal question was always a question, even moreso as we go farther back in historical evidence and perhaps most of all in rural non-Western societies (it would seem). Perhaps the knowledge of modern science has made the fantastic elements of nature appear as less than holy these days... I digress. The question is more of 'how do different societies interpret the animal question?' Should we all be living subsistence lifestyles and fully incorporate nature with green technology and low-impact development? Should we say fuck-all to the cute wittle animals that taste really good in a fricasse? What about poor people? They're really just taking up space, resources, and guilt as it is... What about technological advancement? I want to live on the moon, like TODAY. I want to know why I cry and breathe and have DNA.
It's all fine and dandy, in my opinion. What each individual thinks about nature or certain animals doesn't really seem to matter. I think, though, that we can generally agree on some characteristics of human nature:
1) Most of us require social interactions, either for emotional well-being or just straight-up survival (and the rest probably do also, they're just really bad at it).
2) We require materials and conditions for survival which are beyond the scope of human creation (as of now).
3) We readily admit that we do not understand how the materials and conditions in 2) could be affected by changes in nature (and especially those that appear to be novel contributions by humankind)
So on the one hand, some sort of natural preservation is in order, else we'd ultimately be without enough oxygen or living under the sea or something. Furthermore, we're not just looking out for ourselves... social relations preserve a shared sense of survival needs. Maybe this is where we get kind of confused. What's really important? Who gains access to this special community of protection and manifest destiny? The elderly? Pandas? Children? Trees? TV?
I'm not really convinced that there are any novel moral codes emerging... I think the general boundaries of self and self-interest are as fluid as ever. -
WE'RE ALL FAMILY
I WANT ALL MY BROTHERS
AND MY SISTERS
TO BE FREE
1 to 4 of 4