Should we value animals as something more than sources for us?

[PeteAtoms]

I would. Plus studying all those rats could save more people, right?

It would be worth it for a billion people to die if it kept the Earth habitable for future humans & curtailed the current extinction event.

The human-first philosophy is what's ruining the planet for all creatures.

Wow, it's almost like I addressed the issue in bold in the post you quoted

(unless by killing all the rats, more than 1 innocent person dies by consequence).

I don't really care if the world is ruined for animals. As long as humans are better for it, I'm good.

BUT, BUT, BUT, for the 3rd time, I agree that human self-interest also involves looking after the interest of animals. So there is a balance!!

 

[Narz]

In the words of penn & teller ; " would personally strangle every chimpanzee in the world to death if it would save the life of one street junkie with aids"

I'm eliminate them if I knew their money would go towards a nature preserve for chimps.

 

[PeteAtoms]

I'm not a Derick Jensen fan in particular but I agree with his quote (paraphrased) that no indivudal human life is more important than that of the planet.

I agree with this. Environmentalism is in the best interest of humanity. But there is also another balance.

If you had to clean your room, you could clean it a little or a lot and everything between. It's in your interest to have a clean room, but you will only clean until the benefits no longer exceed the costs.

 

[Communisto]

I'm eliminate them if I knew their money would go towards a nature preserve for chimps.

Why is an animals life worth more than a humans?

 

[Cynovolans]

Why is an animals life worth more than a humans?

Humans are easily replaceable.

 

[Communisto]

Humans are easily replaceable.

I dunno man theres an assload of geese around here.

 

[Cynovolans]

I dunno man theres an assload of geese around here.

And whose fault is that?

 

[Narz]

Why is an animals life worth more than a humans?

It isn't necessarily. However a murderer or rapist's life certainly is (worth less than an animal's). Penn is obnoxious & disingenuous as usual, saying provocative things to get attention. He could easily save one human life is he wanted to (probably he could save hundreds), especially with all the money he's got, but he doesn't so he should STFU.

Human supremacy in general though is an idea I find repulsive.

This thread reminds me of this one.

 

[Communisto]

It isn't necessarily. However a murderer or rapist's life certainly is. Penn is obnoxious & disingenuous as usual, saying provocative things to get attention. He could easily save one human life is he wanted to, especially with all the money he's got, but he doesn't so he should STFU.

Human supremacy in general though is an idea I find repulsive.

This thread reminds me of this one.

Ok then, forget about penn. 10,000,000 rats v a random person on the street. Who lives? Who dies? GO!

 

[PeteAtoms]

Are we talking about pets or random impersonal animals used as food and medical testing?

 

[Communisto]

Are we talking about pets or random impersonal animals used as food and medical testing?

rats. pure rats. doesnt matter what theyre gonna be used for.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Ok then, forget about penn. 10,000,000 rats v a random person on the street. Who lives? Who dies? GO!

What are the consequences of killing that many rats, that impact humans? Otherwise there isn't enough information to make a decision except by emotion or gut feeling.

 

[Communisto]

There isn't enough information to guess the consequences (that impact humans) of killing 10,000,000 rats... this kind of question really can't be made with a gut feeling.

It's a hypothetical. Assume that the only consequence would be the rats or the human would cease to exist. No possible ramifications. We are simply comparing the percieved value of life here.

 

[Narz]

Ok then, forget about penn. 10,000,000 rats v a random person on the street. Who lives? Who dies? GO!

Really would depend on which rats where. Some places rats are a pest, others they're an important part of the ecosystem. And would depend on the individual also. 10 million is a lot of rats though. And I can't imagine 10 million simultaneous rat corpses could do much good.

 

[Communisto]

UGhhhhhhh........

Scientists have cloned 10 million rats and put them all in a giant room in a parallel dimension with a random person abducted from our dimension. For whatever reason they want to eliminate one of these two groups. You get to choose. Which do you choose?

Basically waht you are saying is that you value natural stability of ecosystems over human life? It really doesnt have much to do with animals specifically, does it?

 

[innonimatu]

I can't see how in a world driven by evolutionary forces that one can justify treating animals different from people unless you also subscribe to things like: "might makes right" and "the end justifies the means".

And extending that ridiculous logic, why should plants be treated differently? So, because humans don't (usually) kill and eat each other, don't kill and eat any plants or animals either. So, starve.

I agree that animal cruelty laws are important, but I think that they should be applied to the food industry too. The separation of humans from animals such that they are designated inferior is wrong.

And why, exactly, would it be wrong?

Pete, why are animals worth less than people?

They are powerless. They cannot communicate and argue for rights. They are, therefore, inferior. All humans treat them as a resource to be used. Even those who would have them be protected as pets are just using them for human purposes. Likewise for conservationists.

Argue for protecting animals as much as you want, but you're doing it because you feel good about it, not because of what they feel or wish - they cannot communicate and argue for themselves. "Animal rights" is not a right claimed by animals, it's a right claimed by some groups of humans - against other humans.

 

[Narz]

It's a hypothetical. Assume that the only consequence would be the rats or the human would cease to exist. No possible ramifications. We are simply comparing the percieved value of life here.

Hypotheticals like that are silly. No man or mouse is an island. If the person or 10million rats ceased to exist & no one else noticed I suppose the human disappearing would be slightly sadder but the saddest thing of all would be that nobody even noticed or cared.

 

[Communisto]

Alright, forget it. You guys are no fun.

 

[PeteAtoms]

It's a hypothetical. Assume that the only consequence would be the rats or the human would cease to exist. No possible ramifications. We are simply comparing the percieved value of life here.

So now I have to decide whether a random person should be given the benefit of the doubt. If it's a kid, a mother or what I consider a "good" person, I would definitely get rid of the rats. So than what are the odds... I guess without any negative impact on humanity (long term and short term) I would kill the rats (humanely).

Really would depend on which rats where. Some places rats are a pest, others they're an important part of the ecosystem. And would depend on the individual also. 10 million is a lot of rats though. And I can't imagine 10 million simultaneous rat corpses could do much good.

So if you don't value human life more than an animal's, you wouldn't mind going into places where certain humans are considered 'pests' and killing them?

 

[Narz]

And extending that ridiculous logic, why should plants be treated differently? So, because humans don't (usually) kill and eat each other, don't kill and eat any plants or animals either. So, starve.

Technically you can eat just fine without killing anything (taking fruit & nuts don't kill the plant, taking milk & blood don't kill the animal). Just saying.