From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 12:15:12 MDT
Greg wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> general remark. And as a general remark it is quite hard to accept.
>> In fact, I doubt that there is a single Extropian who would be
>> willing to believe, based on your stated convictions, that you would
>> not vote or lobby for legal restrictions on hunting.
>
> Yes, I would vote for restrictions on hunting. But my vote would be
> lost in the mass of votes in favor of unrestricted hunting. And of
> course, in all serious likelihood, it will never come to a vote. I've
> never heard of a referendum on hunting in my state.
### Don't lose faith. Anti-hunters in Britain almost managed to shut down
foxhunting, their counterparts in Italy brutalized bird hunters into
submission, etc. etc. Your time might come yet.
-----------------------------
>
>> I would bet that the majority of the readers of your initial
>> statement:
>>
>>>>> I don't feel any need to remunerate hunters for loss of "hobby",
>>>>> any more than I would feel the need to remunerate child molestors
>>>>> for depriving them of the ability to molest children.
>>
>> would see it as putting hunters into the same class as child
>> molesters, an expression of scorn, and possibly a psychological
>> manipulation, well beyond the tame interpretation you advanced above.
>
> Well then *they* don't know how to read or think logically.
### Them Extropes, poor saps.
-------------------------------
>>
>> Life, freedom and truth, for their own sake, are what I want, all
>> else is a bonus.
>
> Then I hope one of your bonuses will be happiness. And I hope you
> discover the truth about how animals can be appreciated more than you
> now appreciate them.
### Oh, I do appreciate animals, like my dogs, quite a lot, but since I do
not imagine they are persons, I would never suggest the use of violence to
advance their interests against humans.
-------------------------------
>
>> ### You are anthropomorphizing deer. They do not attach significance
>> to a longer life, since they do not have the concept of a
>> time-invariant self. Therefore killing them is ethically neutral,
>> and if it results on average in reduced suffering (freedom from
>> wildcats, diseases of old age, accidents, etc), like a shot to the
>> heart, it is clearly ethically superior.
>
> It would be anthropomorphizing if I equated, wrongly, anything in
> particular about a deer with something about a human. But that is not
> the case. Deer do not need to have a concept of self at all in order
> to enjoy a longer life, or a life free from gunshots.
### Originally you used the words "to attach significance". This is not the
same as "enjoy" (which indeed can be atemporal), and to attach significance
to a long life you have to have a concept of a long life to begin with, a
concept of self. If you agree that indeed deer do not have a concept of self
(as you seem to imply above), then I'd agree you are not anthropomorphizing.
Of course, if deer have no self, they are not individuals, and the length of
their life has no ethical significance, but becomes a mere question of
usefulness for humans.
------------------------------
>
>> Attaching ethical significance to longer life of deer is like
>> attaching significance to the wishes of inanimate objects, so common
>> in animists.
>
> In order to argue logically, you have to avoid obvious fallacies, like
> this one, false analogy.
### Why false?
--------------------------
>
>> ### How many deer have you sterilized? Was it fun?
>
> I haven't sterilized a deer, but I've sterilized many other animals.
> And it made me feel good about myself, that I was doing so to prevent
> an excess of unwanted animals who could not be cared for.
>
### You see? You can do good without voting, too.
-----------------------------
>> ### Deer are "individuals"? How do you know? How many have you
>> talked to?
>
> This question moves through fallacy into the comic, so I will assume
> you aren't interested in an answer. I can *see* you've made up your
> mind, and since I am not arguing to convince myself, I'll let you
> have the last word again.
### I was actually quite serious here. I have the impression that you've
made up your mind about deer and possibly even fishes being persons. I don't
know where it comes from. Since I use a combination of the Turing test and
inference from structural analysis to detect personhood (which deer fail on
many counts), I wanted to know what other methods do you use to find that
deer are unique individuals (in an ethical sense).
------------------------------
>
>> ### Just wait a few decades and even this will be possible, thanks
>> to the market-driven and government-supported progress of science.
>> All you need is to clone the DNA, assemble it into a genome, and
>> voila, you have your mammoth steak, and T.Rex-safari.
>
> The market will provide... IF I wait a few decades and IF there is a
> viable DNA sample ... and IF I can afford the product.
>
> The market is a pretty poor excuse for a deity, don't you think?
>
### Well, when I was 5 years old I stopped praying to the Almighty, since my
prayers never got answered, but the market seems to deliver. I'll stick with
this faith for now.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 09:24:15 MDT