From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 07:23:36 MDT
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.
I would not *lobby* for anything, since I have too many other things to
do.
> ### As Mike noted, what hunters try is one thing, and what they get is
> something else altogether.
That is so reassuring. :) Then I could hope that all hunters would be that
incompetent.
> >> ### If enough people are really concerned about the welfare of deer
> >> and truly want to help them by sterilization, you will be able to
> >> gather enough funds. Of course, it's easier to ask the local
> >> congressman to do pay for it with other people's money, but I think
> >> I might be digressing here.
> >
> > People don't know what they want. Hunters know they want to hunt, and
> > the political system is designed to match their intentions. Animal
> > lovers are too disorganized, politically naive or unconnected, have
> > no political system (machine) in place. What people *want*, and how
> > many of them want it, is of only partial relevance to what happens.
> > People don't want smog in their cities, either, but there it is.
>
> ### You've been roundly castigated for this "People don't know..." remark,
> so I won't add much here, aside from noting that restrictions on hunting are
> being quite widely adopted, as a result of the relentless pressure from
> greenish organizations.
I am not aware of any new recent restrictions on hunting in my state. I am
also not aware of any "greenish organizations" here that have more than a
handful of members.
What people "want" is often lodged in their subconscious, or out of view,
or manipulated by advertising and the media, or manufactured by social
consensus (conformity to old behavioral memes). People often want
contradictory things - say, a house in the countryside, but also a
subdivision and stores conveniently close by. So they often get a mess,
and wish that they had not done certain things, or regret certain
decisions they have made, after it is too late. Decisions are made just as
often by the system as by people.
> 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.
> Just admit it - you hate hunters! :-)
I hate people putting words in my mouth.
> Why bother being happy?
>
> 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.
> ### 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.
> 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.
> ### 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.
> ### 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.
> ### 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?
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 07:35:17 MDT