NationStates Jolt Archive

Say, in some remote corner of some place free of human civilization, we find a species very much like our own. This humanoid species has developed primitive tools, like stone hammers and synthetic transportation circles used to transport goods easier by reducing the friction caused by its movement, and weapons(mostly pointy sticks). Say it is discovered that this species can learn complex math(after learning about our number system and math, of course) and speech at about the same pace as your everyday human being, not the retarded or genious ones. Would you want this species to have rights?

Let's say that its natural habitat was destroyed for malls and housing. Would you support teaching them the way to survive in our world, give them some land of their own that will never be developed by an overly-consumeristic civilization, or just shoot them all to keep them out of mour way?

Say that it has been discovered that this specie's meat is as nutricious as human meat(why wouldn't people be nutricious? Our meat already has the nutrients we need, obviously. It's us). Would you support eating them?

This is completely hypothetical.

How is this question substantively different from your other one?
It doesn't seem different at all.

How is this question substantively different from your other one?

Given that said species have proven to be as intellgent as humans, I would support not eating them and leaving them alone in a protected area for further study.

Hunt them, wear their skins, eat their flesh, destroy their habitat, and put them in zoos. And when they become "endangered" pass legislation to make the hunting illegal, make new laws about their domestication and slaughter, preserve their habitat by passing laws, and watch the ones in the zoo say, "get your paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

We should sell 'em stuff!

Would you support eating them?

I support the eating of consenting humans why would this be any different:confused:

I think we should try to see if we can integrate them into our society if we can I guess we can give them rights maybe set up reservations for them like with native Americans so they can keep there communities and culture if they wish (of course we would have to be very careful to keep our man germs away because the common cold could exterminate them)

Since you've already ruled out a Prime Directive approach by contacting and teaching them you'll have to face up with the consequences.

Maybe they are willing to join the Intragalactic Empire of Mankind?!?

If they are intelligent enough then integrate them somewhat so that way we can make use of their ability for our society without running into the problems of slavery. If they are not integratable enough then make them pets and if they are not useful at pets then eat them.

One word...

Honey Glaze.

No, I would not support eating them.

I wouldn't be able to look into those cute little eyes and then proceed to stick a fork in them.

Ewok rights!

they are intelligent, right?

so why not teach them to speak, then ask them what theyd like to do.

Isolation and enforced non-interference.

No, I would not support eating them.

I wouldn't be able to look into those cute little eyes and then proceed to stick a fork in them.
A cow can be cute if it wants to be.
And deer certainly can.
Pigs aren't good at it, but they can do it too.

They're not as advanced as us, but still perfectly functional. That tells me they've had no need to progress, and they're basically like us humans. Of course they should have rights.

I don't support tearing down natural habitat for any animal to put up malls etc etc. If they want to live in our society, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. Just leave them be.

Say, in some remote corner of some place free of human civilization, we find a species very much like our own. This humanoid species has developed primitive tools, like stone hammers and synthetic transportation circles used to transport goods easier by reducing the friction caused by its movement, and weapons(mostly pointy sticks). Say it is discovered that this species can learn complex math(after learning about our number system and math, of course) and speech at about the same pace as your everyday human being, not the retarded or genious ones. Would you want this species to have rights?

Let's say that its natural habitat was destroyed for malls and housing. Would you support teaching them the way to survive in our world, give them some land of their own that will never be developed by an overly-consumeristic civilization, or just shoot them all to keep them out of mour way?

Say that it has been discovered that this specie's meat is as nutricious as human meat(why wouldn't people be nutricious? Our meat already has the nutrients we need, obviously. It's us). Would you support eating them?

This is completely hypothetical.

Is it right to interfere in that particular society if they aren't at the same level of us? If they were only decades or even a century or two behind in in technology maybe. And yes they desevre rights.

Within society, im a reasonable guy, but they are NOT humans and unlikely to have a similar society to us. If they are so capable they could overtake us.

This is a matter of survival of the fittest. While we still can we should strategically bomb the bastards to oblivion. I mean sure who needs a heavily polluted planet consisting of nuclear fallout, but do we really want them to be in the same position as us?

One more thing, even if we do integrate, i'm already limited to half the population i can mate (at unrealistically best), can i really stand being left with a quarter?

Within society, im a reasonable guy, but they are NOT humans and unlikely to have a similar society to us. If they are so capable they could overtake us.

This is a matter of survival of the fittest. While we still can we should strategically bomb the bastards to oblivion. I mean sure who needs a heavily polluted planet consisting of nuclear fallout, but do we really want them to be in the same position as us?

One more thing, even if we do integrate, i'm already limited to half the population i can mate (at unrealistically best), can i really stand being left with a quarter?

actuallt, fraction of a percent. Can't mate if you two are seperated by miles of ocean, mountain, and whatnot.

Personally, it's not survival of the fittest for humans. It's survival of the smartest. We may not be able to outrun a charging bear or outpower it but we have pointy sticks, giving us the upper hand. This "force nature into submission" mentallity of ours is crap. Why was Katrina such a disaster? Because the city sank. Why? Because we're stupid enough to build a slowly sinking city. Hell, we'd be more likely to survive hurricanes and earthquakes if we built around nature, not against it. But, why do that? I mean, sure, we'd save a few million people here and there, but nature will win. We can't have that, can we.

And sorry for the multiple threads. I got a 404 error and didn't think it got posted.

It doesn't seem different at all.

Whoa! How were you able to quote Soheran before s/he posted???

Whoa! How were you able to quote Soheran before s/he posted???

Jolt time warps.

Whoa! How were you able to quote Soheran before s/he posted???

He.

Jolt was doing weird things as the forum format was being changed, and a lot of posts ended up appearing before they should have.

"Personally, it's not survival of the fittest for humans. It's survival of the smartest"
Fine then, survival by any and all means.
BTW people usually don't know about natural disaster hotspots when they build a city.

One more thing, some times it is more convenient to build there and maybe set up a few defenses (like skyscrapers that can survive instincts)

And i did say "at unrealistically best"

:mp5: OWNED BEATCH :mp5:

they are intelligent, right?

so why not teach them to speak, then ask them what theyd like to do.

I'll second this.