I think when we call non-human animals animals it makes it sound like we are not animals.
We should call them people, because they persons.
Or if you're talking to a bigot who wouldn't understand you, you could say non-human people.
I think this would encourage people to think about their actions against non-human people more ethically.
I like to call them sentients. As in sentient beings. But I would call humans sentients too.
my financial advisor hahahah
markus, william, georgia, edd (and some others), you are doing an excellent job countering the (fortunately) few speciesist attempts on this thread. (note that 30bad guidelines do not tolerate the human supremacy syndrome).
it matters little whether you try the intelligentist illegitimacy or the spiritualist silliness - both are ridiculous rationalizations at promoting some form of anthropocentric authority.
1. humans are more intelligent than animals happens to be a meaningless generalization, because some humans just aren't more intelligent than some animals. many humans just accept this generalization with the usual puffery without realizing they are immersed in the fallacy of faulty induction.
in fact, considering homo sapiens' record throughout the species' short history, it may not be difficult to demonstrate that a lot of humans are considerably less intelligent than a lot of animals. ;)
note the somewhat appropriate conclusion at the end of this song:
2. this humans have a spiritual side and animals don't is one of pseudo-religious incomprehensibilities that have persisted through the centuries. of course, it appears in intraspecies forms like "those pagans don't have souls, but we do".
beliefs aren't worth a damn unless they are correct, so if one is to harbor one, it would be a case of true 'intelligence' to make sure you can demonstrate the correctness of these things either in a sensible deductive way with relevant axioms or with sufficient empirical evidence. otherwise, enthusiastic evangelists may find themselves subjected to conversational intolerance.
so why not examine concepts like intelligence and spirituality with some real data instead of outdated ramblings?
look at the content of these threads and pages which show what real humans (as opposed to personas on the web) have actually researched:
ok so some of have reason to say "you finally figured it out, eh?" well apparently the sensible scientists have. they've even put it in writing!
A collection of selected blogs by marc bekoff, phd in the area of animal cognition/emotion/sentience. He also garners plenty of evidence for animal spirituality too, btw. You can find a contents of much of his work here.
this discussion was prompted as a result of interesting exchanges in thecan you just eat 100% fruit thread.it is an area that needs to be e…
[follows up on some revelations regarding animal cognition]
The video you are about to see is one of the most surprising collection of interspecies actions.Some humans extrapolate their anthropocentr…
[a very important thread to know about and share]
let me conclude by answering alana's post:
I don't understand why people (Homo sapiens) think that other being have a lesser intelegence than us (homo sapiens) when they do the exact same things we do
her point relates to intelligence, though it might as well relate to spirituality which can actually be 'measured' (to some extent) when we consider behavior instead of nebulous relationships with some deity or other whose sole purpose for existence seems to be to make the universe work for our benefit.
some humans seem to have this great need to be superior to something ... almost anything. as a result, they deliberately ignore alana's point that "they do the exact same things we do" and cradle a connection to the deeds of a very few humans who have say done somethings that no animal has done.
they forget that the devastatingly vast majority of humans haven't thought out quantum mechanics (much less understand it) or invented the computer (much less have a clue how it works).
it is a peculiarity that some people only seem to feel value in themselves at the expense of some other sentient being (of any species). this attitude has been a long lasting curse and explains bruce cockburn's line:
A flock of birds writes something on the sky in a language I can't understand
God's graffiti -- but it don't say why so much evil seems to land on man
want to really be created in the image of god? have a look at this:
pretty well all religions, in some form or another, use the 'we are made in the image of god' line. i do not think this is done to promote anthropocentricity (though the idea certainly has been abused for that purpose). rather, i think it is intended as an evolutionary magnet which entices us to live our potential.
god being an ideal requires ideal characteristics. therefore god has the wonderful qualities of compassion, kindness, dignity, courage, awareness and respect for the myriad of creations.
if we are indeed made in god's image then surely our creator also blessed us with these same qualities. may be we should start living up to that image. it's only natural.
those who really are divine (in intelligence and/or spirituality) never have to engage in self-promotion. they never have to feel warm fuzzies by putting other beings (of any species) down unjustly. racism, misogyny etc are all just subsets of speciesism.
until we embrace vegan path's words here:
" underneath our skin, we are all kin "
we will continue to have wasteful turmoil inside and outside ourselves.
So much love to you prad <3 <3 <3 Thank you for that wonderful response x We were waiting for you to contribute to this thread.
Woah thanks a lot Prad! xD
I have to ask, are you a Sam Harris fan? Im a huge fan of his and I know that he is considering going vegan because his readers keep telling him. If you're a fan of his I think you, or we should send him something to try to vegucate him on the topic, because A LOT of intelligent people listen to what he says, so if he went vegan it would be amazing!
thx georgia and william (not nathan remember!! :D)
i've found that the little i've read of sam's work make sense. this is really rather important because if an argument isn't rationally sensible, it likely won't be empirically sensible. :D
i like his idea that the methods of science can actually answer questions of morality. this concept is rather obvious because good science seeks truth ... just as good religion. truth doesn't particularly care the means by which it is found. most important though is that when you have found truth, how do you act on it. do you uphold it through your lifestyle or do you seek convenient and brush it aside.
which brings us to sam's foray into veg. this is where he'll have to use the tools he's endorsed.
his 'reluctance' as far as i've seen has more to do with coming up with incorrect excuses like the where do i get my protein nonsense. this is a case of science of the poorest quality, but then may be he just hasn't put it together yet ... after all, he is a primarily a philosopher. however, philosophy means "love of knowledge", so it's time to get some of the real science that is abundantly available these days.
so i think it is a superb idea you have about vegucating him!! he might really go for dr greger's work:
in fact, if you can find his specific concerns, i have little doubt that greger will have the actual science ready and available. if the actual research papers are required as opposed to just the rather clear results, we can likely supply them since we've been involved in helping with greger's video bibliographies. so by all means, make this a project of yours and if you require support, i'm pretty sure i can get it for you (though time constraints will cause me to be less active for the next couple of years).
btw, your initial post on this thread reminded me of budding activist, 7 yr old noah and the importance of words:
Tricia directed me to "Is An Animal A Thing? Or A Being?" where Jampa Williams and her 7-year old son, Noah, write of a stir he caused in school by insisting that animals are not "things" (as in a noun is a person, place or thing). He wanted to classify animals as "beings," and thought the definition of a noun should be revised to "beings, places and things."
To be regarded as a thing is to be regarded as an object lacking liberty, protection or rights. A being regarded as a "thing" or an "it" lives or dies, thrives or suffers, according to the consent or even whims of those who hold power over him or her. Often, human beings have bestowed and continue to bestow upon other human beings the classification of "it," and the results are, and always have been, horrific and unconscionable. Treating any sentient being as a "thing" or an "it" produces results no less horrific, no less cruel.
Following her letter is Noah’s, and my favorite part is the end:
A rug or something is a thing, but not an animal. He or she is not a thing! This is not funny, it’s all true. I would not lie to you about this. It’s not a joke.
Do not lie to me, either.
Noah’s onto something, there. We do in fact lie to our children by setting up a system of language that puts only humans, and maybe our pets, in a position high enough where they are permitted the almighty words: who, whom, she, he, and, apparently, being. Nonhuman animals are relegated to the status of inanimate objects: things. And that is a factual error.
Check out the comments, where there are: people who miss the point and don’t see language as important; people who get the point that animals are sentient but simply don’t care to consider them; people who attack Jampa the same way vegan mothers all over are usually attacked; and people who understand the ramifications of the issue and are in awe that someone so young is able to teach us all a lesson.
We are all teachers and we are all students. All of us.
young kids tell the truth, until they have are taught to lie ... but some resist no matter the pressure. it's something to remember because both science and religion can be used to lie with ... instead of serving their intended purpose which is reveal the truth.
william, this is a follow-up to your question:
are you a Sam Harris fan?
i've been watching him on various topics in more detail and am very impressed with not only his integrity, but also with his ability to catch desperate rationalizations and dishonestly forced connections. he is also very polite and courteous (from what i've seen so far).
i'm glad i looked further into how he does things, so thx!
however! sam seems to be a long way from animal rights even though he wrote about the morality of the idea in the moral landscape.
he as of 14-09-02 subscribes to the hierarchy concept with humans at the top.
he also thinks it's fine to do medical research on rats in order to benefit humans even though he chose not to experiment on animals doing his phd.
you can hear his own words about all this:
so there are contradictions, but some progress and understanding has been made. or as the why cultured meat site puts it:
When Sam Harris, one of the most rational philosophers and public intellectuals of our time comes up with this nonsense as explanation for his continued daily participation in torturing and enslaving defenseless beings, one must wonder about the level of selfishness that exists in this world.
It is interesting to know how Harris, who is also a practitioner of Buddhism, explains his consumption of other horror animal products such as eggs and dairy.
So despite all of his published material related to morality, Sam Harris is not a vegan (far from it) but rather one of many individuals who refuse to give up a piece of their high-level and convenient lifestyle.
(his argument in the "this nonsense" link isn't all bad, but it is still hung up on the hierarchy with shades of humane corpse clouding otherwise clear thinking.)
Spirituallity is beyond much of the mainstream 'science' Prad.
Spirituallity is beyond much of the mainstream 'science' Prad.
not really, maja. ;)
many of your mainstream scientists such as
issac newton (set the stage for deterministic physics) ,
galileo (challenged the aristotlean dogma of the catholic church),
copernicus (reworked the geocentric view of the solar system into the heliocentric one),
kepler (determined the trajectories of the planets from tycho brahe's data),
boyle (discovered the law of gases),
pascal (set the foundations for probability theory amongst many other contributions),
faraday (revolutionized the electromagnetism component of physics),
mendel (set down the math of genetics),
kelvin (did some of the ground work for modern physics),
planck (one of the creators of quantum theory),
einstein (well most people know about him)
and there are many, many, many more. they possessed multiple talents that ranged from their specialty (which made them famous) into large areas such as philosophy, theology, moral behavior ... and most certainly real spirituality.
this word 'spirituality' has unfortunately become one of those catch-all concepts that some people like to throw around when they don't want to investigate reality. in fact, it is a wonderful convenience to think one must be beyond reality because one is so spiritual. it means one doesn't really have to behave oneself anymore because they are so well connect with their god.
however, getting into heaven may not be quite as simple as so many self-proclaimed zealots think. as blaise pascal put it in his 'wager', even if god didn't exist, it is to one's benefit to act as if (s)he did and is watching us! :D
there do seem to be rules in place and putting oneself first may be the worst violation. in fact, the willingness to give up one's place in the line, may ironically be the best ticket as this delightful story illustrates:
real scientists have always been spiritual because they are involved in the discovery of how the universe actually works. that is indeed a most wonderfully spiritual endeavor. they see themselves much as did newton:
I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
they are rightly humble for they are on the only path that can lead to god.
'He or she is not a thing!' Oh wow...that nearly made me cry :'( Love everything you write Prad. William (not Nathan :) ) and I are aspiring to be you when we grow up :)