Caged animals. We abolished it for humans, but not animals. If not separate how do we make this division?

Is it science thats judges a question in valid before being able to produce a logical counter point or emotional prejudice from a distance?

But they are not separate in your mind. There should be no slavery in your world view. The thread fails.

As far as i think. It is a form of slavery. I just dont see away around it. I dont want to die by not eating.

I'm not saying animals should be free, I'm saying there is no scientifically moral basis for treating them different than humans

Well plants for one. But really if its true we should just admit its not logical thats all.

Scientists flip a coin. If it lands, then the question doesn't deserve a serious answer.

OK

First off, we don't get normativity from science. Science speaks of "what is" not "what ought to be" - for that we require philosophy. The theory of evolution does not say that other organisms are our "equals" as that is precisely the sort of value-judgement that falls under philosophy. Note that does not imply that the theory of evolution claims that animals are NOT our equals either. It simply doesn't address those sorts of concerns. If you'd like to read up on a robust philosophical approach similar to the one you are talking about here I'd recommend "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer.

This sentence is meaningless at best. We are not on a higher level than other organisms in evolutionary terms. Every extant organism is just as evolved as any other. You have an anthropocentric bias that makes you think other animals are on a lower level, in other words. And, as I mentioned, this contradicts your first sentence, making your post incoherent.

As above, science is not normative and therefore can't justify anything on it's own. Religion is normative, but different religions have different norms on the subject of animal welfare. Jainism is at one extreme, though I'd find it hard to say which religion was at the other. There is some potential justification for eating and enslaving animals in the Abrahamic religions from Genesis 1:26:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Eating plants wont get me out of the jam. Id still be taking a living thing and killing it to keep myself alive.

Better i guess since they be dumb and stuff. But still ultimately in a jam.

I believe I understand this.

I'm suggesting then we have no basis to cage animals for food and not humans. I am pointing out we treat them as lower and suggesting there is no justification for it.


Yes but how does atheist society justify it?

First step to such evolutionary or technological change is admitting as society there is no moral or scientific reason to eat animals or plants at least in the near future. We could do test lab meat that never lived maybe?

Okay.

No, you said "we can spend time and technology evolving species to our 'level'"

This implies that you believe that animals are not evolved to our "level".

I've just linked you to an atheist philosopher who says it's wrong to eat or mistreat animals.

Scientists are working on this. But you will not find a scientific reason either to eat or to refrain from eating animals as that is the domain of philosophy/religion, not science.

It can't really because I am sure we are equal. But when I saw 'our level' I mean that we cage and eat them, but don't others (humans) so I'm pointing at a division I didn't create.

What about plants though?

Scientists are working on this. But you will not find a scientific reason either to eat or to refrain from eating animals as that is the domain of philosophy/religion, not science.[/QUOTE]

I'm not suggesting that, I"m pointing out we treat them different than humans with no scientific basis to do so.

It's clear what you meant. Just admit you mispoke. The fact that you always try to deny your small errors means no-one takes you seriously.

What about them? Why not engage with the relevant philosophical literature or at least the appropriate subforum (i.e. SMP)

There is no purely scientific basis for what one ought to do in any domain. Your focus on scientific justification is fundamentally misguided as your question is philosophical.

I happily admit I erred, I am only concerned if you understand my true meaning.
They should be treated the same as humans, there is no basis for any other distinction or is there?
I'm not allowed in the science section

I realize that I am asking why we cage animals but abolish slavery for humans?

Nah. There are already moves to eating things like lab meat or a magic fill you up pill without society as a whole seeing eating living things as wrong. The first steps have already been taken.

Then again i dont know much about growing lab meat, but id guess there grown from living things and those would be killed in the process. So what ya going to do...

I have been thinking about this a lot - I eat meat, though I try to think through the consequences. I have a local butcher that has free ranged meat. If I can't get to the butcher, I generally try to stay with the organic meats and what not. I do try to limit meat at meals - generally just for dinner, though I am not always good at it.

That being said, I don't really have any qualms with eating plants - though, killing is always happening. Any kind of farming is going to involve killing - even if it is the mere insects in the ground, on the plants - and not just from insecticides, just the process itself - preparing the land, growing the plants, and harvesting is going to kill something.

Heck, just life in general - if I take a shower, I think its a mass killing of the little bugs that live on a body.

Not sure how to get around it - that is not to say, F' it - why bother. But I think intention has a lot to do with it.

I eat meat, but I don't fully agree with it.

But it seems we have no moral foundation to suggest that eating humans and having slaves is wrong, but its not wrong to do the same to animals.

In our daily lives it might not be plausible to change, but it think we could admit that not admitting that is a religious bias.

If evolution is a fact we should be able to evolve to live off at least the sun.

We could evolve insects and plants into things that don't get stepped on. And animals that don't eat each other.

Its seems we could evolve them to talk and think as well.

Pokemon is not the best source for learning how evolution works.

Its ok, you don't understand the question.

Pokemon seems to stretch the limits of generalising from fictional evidence further than most

This entire thread is a little flaky but I will toss in my perspective as a professional scientist and a theist.

I eat meat and plants and have no problem at all with either. I do not see eating as a moral issue at all. I assign a high level of rights to other humans, on the basis that I assume that they have the same level of self-awareness that I do. If you want me to assign that level of respect to animals, you will have to prove to me that they also possess that same quality. In the absence of proof, I have absolutely no interest in your concerns, at all. I will continue to eat meat or plants in whatever proportion I see fit without regard to those concerns. If it should come to pass that the animal rights advocates should get enough political power to make eating meat illegal, then I will stop. I am not willing to go to war to preserve my freedom to eat meat, but I will oppose those initiatives politically under all circumstances.

No "if" required. Evolution is a fact. You also can direct evolution in the way you suggest. I have seen it done in my research projects. If you need a specific enzyme which is not naturally occurring, one way to obtain it is to put a colony of microorganisms in an environment where only that enzyme will allow them to survive. It helps to add some mutation stimulator to increase the rate of evolution, but eventually with a little luck you will find a colony of microorganisms that will be able to survive. That colony may well have evolved the ability to make the enzyme that you need. Or they may have developed some other less useful work around.

In any event, you can direct evolution. Of course, getting a single enzyme from microorganisms that create a new generation every 20 minutes may only take a month or two. Getting a similar effect in a human with a new generation every 20 years would take tens of thousands of years, assuming you were willing to kill millions of them that failed to create the needed mutation and were willing to irradiate them to enhance the mutation rate. To evolve a system as complex as photosynthesis which involves dozens of specific enzymes would take millions of years, just like the millions of years it took to evolve our current energy intake system, ie. a digestive system and a neurological system that allows us to seek out, ingest and digest energy sources.

Appreciated!
Yes you do because no doubt you do not agree with eating and caging humans for such purposes.
I do not understand how a scientist lives on foundations of assumption for such important matters.
But why should no one have to prove to you that fellow humans have the same level of consciousness, evolution suggests we are from the same source.

I don't think we need proof I think evolution points out we are all of the same original nature.
I find this strange too, to believe in the powers of law. Is it your countries law that you follow? Aren't many laws against the understandings of science? Regardless your beliefs on the morality of the issue would not change with the law would it?


We should be clear war does not bring freedom.
We are in the religious section
I appreciate the explanations but I highlighted these two parts, I am pretty sure science accepts that as well. Not sure why its called pokemon. Seems a 10 year would understand all this.


This does not whatsoever take into account the pace of technology.

But nonetheless I don't care that we can make it feasible, it seems clear to me if you follow the 'science' that it shows we have no basis for treating animals as lesser beings in these way, nor do we for plants.

We cannot currently 'evolve' animals to be able to talk or photosynthesise. We've been 'evolving' dogs (from a wolf ancestor) for over 10,000 years and so far have succeeded in pretty much just slightly different shapes and sizes of the basic phenotype.

Of course, it is fair to suggest that future technological advances may improve our ability to make large changes to phenotypes over shortish time periods, but then what is the sense in your apparent dismay that we aren't do it now, given that we can't do it now?

I am not telling people to stop eating meat or animals. I am pointing out there is no justification to treats animals different than humans. Doesn't matter if we can do it now or later, being able to change shows that we have no foundation to base these things on.

I don't think its dismay either, it seems to be a simple point. Judging by your reaction and having a scientist quickly confirm its validity, I'd suggest this subject touched your emotions.

Technology will change this quickly, how long until our cell phones feed us? 100 years? I say less than 10.

Also when we say evolution is a fact, we are assuming time travel isn't real.

What has that got to do with the post you responded to?

Hmmm... so many ways to approach this. But in the interest of killing two birds with one stone, I'll just say that I'm surprised that RLK believes that we can currently 'evolve' animals so they are able to photosynthesise, but I'm sure he wouldn't want to destroy his scientific credentials by saying something silly, so I'll accept it for now.

Uh huh.

lololololololololol

no, that assumption is not required.