So socialism

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem isn't that a system of stringing together bits of text is "intelligent" and able to replace humans. The problem is that college students have been trained to be dump, stringing together text they don't understand and avoiding the use of any critical thought. I see it here too... the mindless parroting of the "news".

i don't recall saying gpt was intelligent, just that it's doing the work more effectively than actual people at scale. that's all it needs to do, across a wide array of jobs, to cause the problem we were discussing.

There is no "singularity" coming to threaten humans.

i wouldn't rule that out completely either, but it's not what we were discussing.

what we were talking about is more along the lines of a change comparable to the industrial revolution, but over a shorter timeframe. that won't end humanity or anything, but depending on how it's handled there will be varying degrees of strife. ultimately, the productivity increase will be too great to not use it in a competitive world (same with industrial revolution), so best to consider the effects in advance and plan around them.

which of course governments won't actually do. but some people will.

 

[Yeekim]

I looked up animal territoriality and noticed that humans don't behave that way. I also noticed the main argument I've seen for human territoriality is circular.

I was not making an "argument", I was asking a question. Which you are sidestepping.

Probably the fact that the Neolithic revolution clearly represents a radical turnaround in human behavior.

Yes, we started growing crops. Which none of other territorial animals do. But that does not stop them from being territorial.

I will say it's fascinating to see the loudest voices condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine arguing here that we're just territorial animals who kill and fight each other because it's in our nature to do so. I don't see how it's possible to make moral condemnations at all if you believe humans are "no different" than other animals.

Whereever did I even hint at any of this?
Our ancestors were apes. They were either territorial, like chimpanzees, or not, like orangutans. I was simply interested why you think it was the latter, but I guess I have my answer - you're arguing this way because you believe (for some unfathomable reason; I certainly don't want to claim any biological determinism here) that it would support your political views. Moreover, you seem to have some pretty dark views of what "territoriality" even means in the animal kingdom - I understand it to primarily mean respecting each other's territory, avoiding trespassing where possible.
Which is highly at odds with what Russia is doing. Moreover, it is asinine to claim morality is exclusive to humans.

Unless of course the condemnations of Russia aren't about morality but actually just because you think Russia is "the other team" and you would prefer your team to be doing the killing and raping.

Now you're just being a jerk.

 

[Gorbles]

I understand it to primarily mean respecting each other's territory, avoiding trespassing where possible.

That's not what it means, no.

 

[Narz]

Well, let me know when an animal designs a computer with an internet connection. I'll respond to this post then.

We invented the internet and squabble on it like two dogs barking across a fence.

 

[Lexicus]

I was not making an "argument", I was asking a question. Which you are sidestepping.

No, I answered your question. Literally. Maybe not with as much detail as you wanted. I said "the argument" not "your argument."

Moreover, it is asinine to claim morality is exclusive to humans.

This is a complicated question. I do not think it has been demonstrated conclusively that non-human animals have morality in the same sense as humans. Moreover, practically speaking, a human is the only creature that we hold to be responsible for its actions. We do not charge animals with crimes, for instance. We might euthanize an animal if it bites a human, but that is to protect other humans rather than as a "punishment.

 

[Narz]

This is a complicated question. I do not think it has been demonstrated conclusively that non-human animals have morality in the same sense as humans. Moreover, practically speaking, a human is the only creature that we hold to be responsible for its actions. We do not charge animals with crimes, for instance. We might euthanize an animal if it bites a human, but that is to protect other humans rather than as a "punishment.

How we treat them doesn't speak to whether they have morality or not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Please keep in mind that we have threads to discus the Ukrainian war. This is not one of them. Thanks.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is a complicated question. I do not think it has been demonstrated conclusively that non-human animals have morality in the same sense as humans. Moreover, practically speaking, a human is the only creature that we hold to be responsible for its actions. We do not charge animals with crimes, for instance. We might euthanize an animal if it bites a human, but that is to protect other humans rather than as a "punishment.

On this, Ash Wednesday, beginning of Lent: Why is it particularly holy and acknowledging of our sinful nature to abstain from eating "higher order" animals? Gotta admit, I'm getting a little hangry by now.

 

[Lexicus]

How we treat them doesn't speak to whether they have morality or not.

If they have moral agency it would be appropriate to hold them accountable for their actions, wouldn't it?

 

[Akka]

The separate established concepts of territorialism in both humans and (other) animals (as linked) suggests otherwise. There are animals that can act more like us, and animals that act less like us. But nowhere near "exactly", across the board.

This seems to suppose that "other social mammals" all act alike, that I could look at a herd of cows and a troop of baboons and say "they're the same", which seems untrue on the face of it. Any commonalities you could find between all or even just most social mammals (and I don't doubt that they do exist) are going to be so broad that they couldn't possibly point humans towards any specific plan of social organisation.

I can look at the home of a party-goer, all the time full of noise and lights and people, and the home of a quiet recluse, always silent and still, and say they are not the same, but they are both humans yet with all the core function and mental wire that humans share.

What I mean is that I was talking about the deep underlying core behaviours that provides a frame for everything else. "exactly" might give an excessive impression that we are the same in details (we aren't, of course), but the fundamental impulses and processes are at the least very similar between all social mammals at the population level. The most fundamental inner workings are probably shared by the near-entirety of the animal kingdom, in fact.

 

[Akka]

This is a complicated question. I do not think it has been demonstrated conclusively that non-human animals have morality in the same sense as humans. Moreover, practically speaking, a human is the only creature that we hold to be responsible for its actions. We do not charge animals with crimes, for instance. We might euthanize an animal if it bites a human, but that is to protect other humans rather than as a "punishment.

If they have moral agency it would be appropriate to hold them accountable for their actions, wouldn't it?

That's nonsensical. How WE treat them depends on OUR morality, not THEIR. Their morality depends on how they treat each others.

 

[Lexicus]

That's nonsensical. How WE treat them depends on OUR morality, not THEIR. Their morality depends on how they treat each others.

My point is that until we figure out how to treat animals as if they have moral agency, the question of whether they have morality remains purely abstract with no real-world import.

 

[Narz]

If they have moral agency it would be appropriate to hold them accountable for their actions, wouldn't it?

Do you know many animals who commit crimes?

And we do hold them accountable if they do something we don't like (or are in our way), usually by killing them.

My point is that until we figure out how to treat animals as if they have moral agency, the question of whether they have morality remains purely abstract with no real-world import.

Elephants mourn their dead, dogs will ask more heroically to save their owners than most humans. Like Akka said our inability to treat animals w proper respect reflects on us not them. IMO, humans are by far the worst animal morally as we house animals in conditions worse than any concentration camp simply for our own craving to consume their flesh. Not just for survival but to the point of obesity.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, I wouldn't get uppity about devouring others until obesity. They don't have the capacity to do all the things vaguely implied there, but they will definitely do that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

IMO, humans are by far the worst animal morally as we house animals in conditions worse than any concentration camp simply for our own craving to consume their flesh. Not just for survival but to the point of obesity.

i don't want to go too deep into the weeds on this since it's not too related to socialism overall, but there are some animals that do pretty brutal things, like ants. depending on how you rate atrocities, you could make a case that they're worse compared to most humans now. kind of bizarre considering how different humans vs ants are as animals though.

 

[Akka]

My point is that until we figure out how to treat animals as if they have moral agency, the question of whether they have morality remains purely abstract with no real-world import.

Well, we were talking about how humans et animals work, not about how society would adapt to shoehorn animals into human morality.

 

[sophie]

Moreover, practically speaking, a human is the only creature that we hold to be responsible for its actions. We do not charge animals with crimes, for instance.

European medieval society did (I’m not familiar with other historical cultures in this respect). Treating animals as on equal standing with people and able to be both tried in court and to provide witness in trial was something that was not uncommon, and the move to viewing animals as automata incapable of legal standing is something that only emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, and this depersonalization of animals was quite viciously opposed and contested at the time.

The most infamous example of course is in 1509 when the town of Autun in France sued all the rats of the town for eating the grain stock and causing a famine.

 

[Narz]

i don't want to go too deep into the weeds on this since it's not too related to socialism overall, but there are some animals that do pretty brutal things, like ants. depending on how you rate atrocities, you could make a case that they're worse compared to most humans now. kind of bizarre considering how different humans vs ants are as animals though.

I don't think any animal action can compete in monstrosity against factory farming.

I suppose in terms of sheer numbers (and amount of years they've been @ it) perhaps insects have inflicted more pain on one another.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think any animal action can compete in monstrosity against factory farming.

I suppose in terms of sheer numbers (and amount of years they've been @ it) perhaps insects have inflicted more pain on one another.

x species kills very similar species and steals their young, at scale, to use for labor until they die...basically slavery, seems at least close. depends on how you weight each thing's badness.

 

[Lexicus]

European medieval society did (I’m not familiar with other historical cultures in this respect). Treating animals as on equal standing with people and able to be both tried in court and to provide witness in trial was something that was not uncommon, and the move to viewing animals as automata incapable of legal standing is something that only emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, and this depersonalization of animals was quite viciously opposed and contested at the time.

The most infamous example of course is in 1509 when the town of Autun in France sued all the rats of the town for eating the grain stock and causing a famine.

Fascinating, I didn't know that. I think I have objections to treating animals as moral equivalents of people in this way.

Well, we were talking about how humans et animals work, not about how society would adapt to shoehorn animals into human morality.

I don't know what you mean by "humans et animals work".

@Yeekim I think you made a quite valid point that I took too seriously Narz and Farm Boy's identification of territoriality with conflict and violence. A big part of animal territoriality appears to be about avoiding conflict.