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

Indeed. We had a rather excellent roast pheasant for tea yesterday, and my Mother's Christmas present was a rabbit skin hat. she was well chuffed with it, and it only cost me time, tanning materials and thread.

It may be a good thing, but shooting animals bothers me. I've had to shoot a couple of deer that were hit by cars and in Iraq we were under orders to shoot all stray dogs because they were eating bodies. I always found it disturbing.

Other people can do that. I don't mind people hunting, especially deer, which I consider a menace to the driving public. I'll stick to targets for fun, and possible people as the need arises.

Quite with you there Two Bit I understand the need (I've been a student of countryside management), but to be honest, anyone who finds it 'fun', rather than an unpleasant necessary evil, to end any living creature's life, is a little bit sick in my view. If anyone wants to consider this view to be a namby pamby tree-hugging view, so be it

It annoys me when people take pleasure in killing 'pest' species. No creature *knows* it's a 'pest'; the concept of a pest is an entirely human, arbitrary construct, or 'deserves' death. Environmentally problematic species such as non-native grey squirrels or over-bred deer are only pests cause humans put them there in the first place, or destroyed their natural predators.

There is absolutely no difference at all in killing a grey squirrel or killing the family dog. They are both sentient pain-feeling species, going about their natural lives. It's just that at this particular time in history, humans have imbued the dog with emotional importance and decided the grey squirrel is a nuisance (in the UK). Go figure.

pain feeling creatures, yes - and i might agree that enjoying hunting them is odd ( i myself am not a shooter)

But if they are sentient, then a) our scientists are missing a trick b)Hunting them would be equivalent to murder

Depends on what you mean by "sentient" of course....

Awareness of yourself as a being - it used to be done with a mirror, on the slightly odd logic that if you could recognise the thing in the mirror as you, that was awareness, until several dozen other beings (not just dolphins etc) but some birds and other mammals, and even (how they got this i have no idea) a type of worm

:S

Is there a difference as recognising a mirror image as you, and recognising it as not being a threat to you?

I would say so
- regardless, humans are more than capable of being threats to themselves, so that could be hard to figure out itself (very crowded)

http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=8288769&post=110531880#p110531880

Animals with a strong sense of smell may well know the animal in the mirror is not real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

So our prediction for an animal with a strong sense of smell would be...what?

If not elf-aware - to ignore the mirror because even though it looks like an animal it's not?

If self aware - to think 'Curious. It looks like me but doesn't smell like me.'?

I'm trying to work out if it makes any difference to detecting self-awareness.

-aware.

But come on over to the other thread I started and discuss whether it's OK to shoot magpies.

>>There is absolutely no difference at all in killing a grey squirrel or killing the family dog. They are both sentient pain-feeling species, going about their natural lives.

Furthermore, I don't see why we should feel any differently about hunting animals because they do or don't have the ability to feel pain. Pain is simply a transitory means of alerting the animal to a potentially damaging situation. Just because a fish (allegedly) can't feel pain, doesn't make damaging or killing it any better (or worse) in my eyes.

I would disagree, most humans (animals of one form) would prefer to go without pain, rather than with it.
It is also better that animals day with minimal pain.
While if you are against killing animals full stop, you can take the argument that murder is murder, whether or not the victim took any pain (though even then, your prison sentence is likely to be greater if you caused your victim extended suffering).
If you do not consider the killing of animals to be murder, then it is still better to not cause them harm.

No, I think inflicting fear or pain is worse than not inflicting it.

I am suspicious of the idea that fish don't feel fear or pain; any creature which has survived 3bn years of evolution is, by definition, descended from ancestors every single one of which managed to avoid being eaten for long enough to breed.

If you just float around nomming sea-weed and enjoying the shafts of sunlight filtered through coral, then you are considerably less likely to make little fishies for people to put in little dishies when the boat comes in. The way that creatures avoid being eaten is by feeling pain and fear and getting away from things that cause them

Although no other animal would reciprocate. Animals don't care if they kill or cause pain - yet we don't generally think ill of them. With humans, on the other hand, we know and largely agree not to kill or cause pain to one another.

Is this lack or recipricocity relevant?

Why/why not?


This topic really would be better on the 'is it wromg to eat a bonobo' thread.