h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And the subject of whether animals have a concept of death, whilst harder to study, is certainly well discussed http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/consciousness.html

You know what? I'll err on the side of caution, and just carry on trying not to kill anything unecessarily. If you knew for a fact that the turtle that created the soup you're slurping, was aware of it's own impending death and was in a lot of pain when it died, and you *still* claim that you wouldn't feel any guilt or concern, then you're very welcome to your own planet. I'm glad i don't share your views...

Or are you just trying to shock?....

"Certain patterns of animal behaviour are not proof of intelligence"

No, they're not, but if it looks like a cow, moos like a cow, chews cud like a cow, then it is probably, in all likelyhood, a cow. Oscams razor? Why search for complex explanations of why animals may exhibit behavior that looks like something, when the very simplest explanantion is that the behavior is what it looks like.

Occam's razor, even

If it looks like the sun is in orbit of the earth then it must be.
If it looks like the sun is big heap of coal blazing away then it must be.
We can't explain why something is the way it is, must be God.


And, is it really such a revelation to you that someone could be more concerned by man treating his fellow man as though they were nothing but walking lumps of mean to exploit or kill capriciously than other animals that infinetly closer to being walking lumps of meat?

From Wikipedia
"Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because it requires fewer assumptions. In the light of this, the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "The simplest explanation is the best one" - can lead to a gross oversimplification when the word simple is taken at face value."

So that would rule out your sun analogy, then...

And please don't confuse me with someone who needs religion or gods to explain things- thanks awfully

And no, it's not a revelation that someone could be more concerned about his fellow man than an animal As stated in the other thread- i would choose the life of a person (person dependent..) over an animal (almost) every time....

Why do these things have to be mutually exclusive? You're saying that as long as there are human rights abuses going on anywhere, we shouldn't worry about animal cruelty at all?

Are you also one of those short sighted people who think we shouldn't have/be 'wasted' money on space exploration whilst people are still starving on earth?

Fortunately, my brain can handle concern for all kinds of things simultaniously- bright, i am, oh yes

"Why, sometimes I've imagined as much as 6 impossible things before breakfast."

"Are you also one of those short sighted people who think we shouldn't have/be 'wasted' money on space exploration whilst people are still starving on earth?"

Yes, especially the Chinese space program, but almost equally so any human space flight program sponsored by any government.

Where do you draw the line with that attitude? Maybe we should never have set out to find America or so much as travel to a neighbouring country..

Do you really think that a single extra starving African would be alive today if Man hadn't gone to the moon? Government budgets don't work like that. The money would've been spent on defence, in all likelyhood.

"So that would rule out your sun analogy, then..."

Really? I don't think it does. It supports my anology that taking things at face value is not always wise, and my god anology was about making assumptions that something so merely because it supports the strata of the way would wish things to be.

"Are you also one of those short sighted people who think we shouldn't have/be 'wasted' money on space exploration whilst people are still starving on earth?"

Are you one of those sentimental incurably romantic people that believe space programms were born out of a spirit of scientific exploration for the ultimate benefit of humanity's cause? The Space programmes were about defense, they were about posturing and national prestige, sending the single that they had the power to land a missile in your back garden.

The US put a man on the moon. Still has people who are illiterate, and even people too poor to get pay for water, the very basic of life.

"Fortunately, my brain can handle concern for all kinds of things simultaniously- bright, i am, oh yes"

So can mine, but I also look with some perspective on wether or not they matter.
I ask you again: what is the happiness of a pig [or turtle] to that of a man?

"Where do you draw the line with that attitude? Maybe we should never have set out to find America or so much as travel to a neighbouring country.."

The attitude that the Chinese people would be better off if their government spent it's money improving their quality of life instead of trying to show-off?

You really do believe governemnts go to space out of ultruism and an indomitable human spirit.

"Do you really think that a single extra starving African would be alive today if Man hadn't gone to the moon? Government budgets don't work like that. The money would've been spent on defence, in all likelyhood."

Don't be disingenuous.


Do you really think that a single extra "starving African" {sic} would be alive today if people had given their money to MSF instead of the RSPCA?
Of course they bloody well would.

The RSPCA, only 20% of the cases they take to court actually have any merit. No crime offense has been committed in the other 80%. Of the 20% about 1/6 of the people they are trying to prosecuet are more guilty of self-neglect than cruelty animals. They're mentally ill or are old and infirm, but that still piut those people through the stress of a court appearence.

Imagine if MSF had that kind of appaling record.

"Are you one of those sentimental incurably romantic people that believe space programms were born out of a spirit of scientific exploration for the ultimate benefit of humanity's cause? The Space programmes were about defense, they were about posturing and national prestige, sending the single that they had the power to land a missile in your back garden."

It may have started that way, but i don't think the martian rovers are about defence now...The space program is now a mixture of defence and cutting edge scientific research.. Space research really is just an extention of human(and animal) nature- we explore new places and things. It's innate. Hence my example of discovering America- once you've found all the major landmasses on earth, exploring space really is just the next logical step. It would always happen, even without the cold war, it would've begun at some stage. Possibly not even yet, but at some point..

If you are looking for vast, imediate life saving pay-offs from the space program you'll be disapointed (though when our sun eventually goes into it's red giant stage, your decendents will sure be glad there was a space program). That's what i meant about short-sightedness. The space program increases our overall knowledge of life, the universe and everything. On the way, it also happens to create the odd disease cure or new material, but those things really are incidental.

"The US put a man on the moon. Still has people who are illiterate, and even people too poor to get pay for water, the very basic of life."

No, sorry. I've never understood that argument. Just doesn't compute. 2 separate things. That's right- everyone would be able to spell now if it wasn't for the space program gobbling up all that money Utter bo##ocks.

"but I also look with some perspective on wether or not they matter.
I ask you again: what is the happiness of a pig [or turtle] to that of a man?"

I ask YOU again- why does it have to be one thing or another. You can do your bit to alleviate suffering in the third world, whilst simulataniously not supporting cruel and unecessary farming practices, and animal trades. ('exotic' animal foods, rhino/elephant hornes, fur trade, etc..)

To answer your question directly- yes i do place the happiness of a man above that of a pig, but only above it, not to the point where i totoally disregard the 'happiness' of a pig..(and they have been shown to be pretty smart beasts)

"Do you really think that a single extra "starving African" {sic} would be alive today if people had given their money to MSF instead of the RSPCA?
Of course they bloody well would."

But you can't infer that if the RSPCA didn't exist, people would automatically give their wealth to some other 'deserving cause'. The kind of person that gives to the RSPCA probably isn't the kind of person who would donate to MSF They'de probably leave it to their neighbour's dog instead.

And I'm glad my philosophical view has so little in common with that of a person who would leave there money to a neighbours dog or to centrally heated home for stray cats.

Think about my question with the man and the pig abit more. You may come to understand it better if you give some genuine thought.

Thanks Mr Patronising- i've thought about it quite enough and my answer remains the same

Away an' bile yer heed, as they say round these parts..

I think that back in 1969 it was said that the Apollo 11 Moon Landing cost about the same as American women spent on cosmetics in one year. Not the whole programme you understand, just a figure for that mission.

I wonder how many of the cosmetics were animal teted?

Novo

Indeed. The money spent/still spent is a drop in the ocean- i believe less than 1% of what America spends on defence.

And even if every penny had been spent on humanitarian issues (which it would never have been), throwing money at famine, illiteracy etc doesn't solve the problem. There are political reasons behind these problems. Jeese, if it was just a matter of spending a few billion dollars to feed the world, i think it would've been done by now.. if not by a nation, then by a Bill Gates type figure.

I can't believe any intellegent person on this forum would argue that space research is a waste of money. It's normally an argument put forward by Daily hate readers and their ilk.

Seething Nuclear Chaos,

>>I ask you again: what is the happiness of a pig [or turtle] to that of a man?

That is the wrong question. As Jeremy Bentham said, it's about whether pigs can suffer, ie experience physical pain, not anything like an abstract concept of happiness. A mammal such as a pig can feel pain because it is similar to us and it would be an outrage against common sense and experience to conclude anything else.

Ah, but how do you *know* animals can feel pain? The answer, to any but the most disingenuous Cartesian reductivist, is via empathy. Unscientific, but none the worse for being so.

It has been argued that NASA should be focusing on probes rather than humans, since keeping a person alive in space is very expensive for what they do.

Well I eat meat that has probably been treated very inhumanely, so I obviously don't care *that* much, but I would certainly prefer for them not to be in pain. I think some evidence of personality, feeling or thought is more important to me than general humanness. I do, for example, have no problems with battery farmed boy-bands.

*farming, not farmed

I have no problem with where Nasa spend their money- there is merit in the probe approach, value for money wise- it's the outragious suggestion that the entire agency, and all space agencies are a total waste of money, that left me slack jawed!

I would also generally concurr with your meat-eating/boyband statement.. I suupose that's the reason for the organic movement. We want to eat meat, but the process *must* be as 'humane' as possible, even if it costs more.

I wouldn't on the other hand campaign for the humane treatment of boybands.