NationStates Jolt Archive

"How we behave toward cats here below determines our status in heaven."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Not easy to watch - Pet abuse in China. (http://sonia076.multiply.com/video/item/74/REPASSE_PARA_O_PLANETA_INTEIRO_VER_QUE_MALDADE_CHOREI_DE_VER)

I think we should ban the beijing olympics over this.

This stuff happens everywhere. There are much more important things China needs to fix up.

I questioned the wisdom of holding the event there from day one, and nothing has caused me to change my mind thus far. While one must put aside cultural biases regarding food and such like, the treatment of their own population, as well as the Tibetans, strikes me as being far too brutal, harsh and repressive to hold an international event like this there. If this was Syria or Iran hosting the games, there'd be far more controversy.

While in the rest of the world the animal husbandry industry does equally horrible acts towards other animals, but I guess only the cute and cuddly ones are worthy of boycotts and the others not worth you giving up your chicken cutlets or leather shoes or any other animal product you use over?

While in the rest of the world the animal husbandry industry does equally horrible acts towards other animals, but I guess only the cute and cuddly ones are worthy of boycotts and the others not worth you giving up your chicken cutlets or leather shoes or any other animal product you use over?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Never mind the human rights abuses. they'd still make a great Olympics host natio- OH MY GOD THE CATS! WHAT ABOUT THE CATS! SAVE THE CATS FROM THE CHINESESE!

For God's sake...

I guess only the cute and cuddly ones are worthy of boycotts and the others not worth you giving up your chicken cutlets or leather shoes over?

I didn't say I'm not horrified by those as well.
The point is not the killing for food, but for fur coats and indeed leather shoes (which I don't wear, of course), and that's what you see in the video. There are ways to handle those animals without causing unnecessary suffering.

I didn't say I'm not horrified by those as well.
The point is not the killing for food, but for fur coats and indeed leather shoes (which I don't wear, of course), and that's what you see in the video. There are ways to handle those animals without causing unnecessary suffering.

Considering what they are capable of doing to their human populace, I'd say you'd have a long road ahead in convincing them to bother their arses.

Never mind the human rights abuses. they'd still make a great Olympics host natio- OH MY GOD THE CATS!

Yet no one complained about the human rights abuses.
I'm against holding the olympics there in general, and this is just an attempt to raise some awareness.

I didn't say I'm not horrified by those as well.

Why don't you demand we boycott all countries with animal husbandry industries, then? That's because you don't care about animals. You only care about the cute ones you yourself wouldn't eat or wear, and fuck the rest.

The point is not the killing for food, but for fur coats and indeed leather shoes (which I don't wear, of course), and that's what you see in the video.

There is no difference between killing them to eat their carcasses or killing them to wear their carcasses.

There are ways to handle those animals without causing unnecessary suffering.

Eating animals is both unnecessary and causes suffering.

There are a million other reasons to boycott China too.

And while I am a vegetarian, and an animal rights activist, I must say that we should still be highly concerned with the extensive human rights violations there.

The point is not the killing for food, but for fur coats and indeed leather shoes (which I don't wear, of course), and that's what you see in the video. There are ways to handle those animals without causing unnecessary suffering.

Fass' point, I believe, is that industrial farming and the meat industry in Western countries put animals through horrific cruelty. It's perfectly right and legitimate to criticise the Chinese, but one should also condemn what's happening in Western countries, which do exactly the same.

Should the Athens, Sydney and Atlanta Olympics have been "banned"? Where would the Olympics be held? Thimphu?

Yet no one complained about the human rights abuses.

That is a god damned lie and doesn't make a lick of sense.

At any rate many believe that the Olympics will improve China's behaviour.

Fass' point, I believe, is that industrial farming and the meat industry in Western countries put animals through horrific cruelty. It's perfectly right and legitimate to criticise the Chinese, but one should also condemn what's happening in Western countries, which do exactly the same.

Should the Athens, Sydney and Atlanta Olympics have been "banned"? Where would the Olympics be held? Thimphu?

Every nation participates in extensive cruelty to animals. The USA is just as bad as China, no doubt in my mind. China however is a top violator of human rights, and that should not be tolerated.

(and no, I'm not saying animal torture is okay, I'm saying that if you based the Olympics' locations on it, the Olympics wouldn't exist)

ach, forget it, I should just delete the thread or something like that...:(

There are a few other reasons I'd call them out for before their abuses of animals. Their abuse of people, for one. Taiwan and Tibet, for another. And shipping toxic food products and toys, for a third.

Of all the things China is doing, you focus on abusing cats. Seriously, wtf

\There is no difference between killing them to eat their carcasses or killing them to wear their carcasses.

I would think that the difference between killing something to eat it and therefore continue to exist might be a LITTLE different than killing something merely for vanity and adornment -- though the reason doesn't make a lick of difference to the animal killed.

Yet no one complained about the human rights abuses.
.

?????????????????????????My arse they didn't. The fact is that many Western (and non-Western, now I think of it) Govts. are far too interested in Chinas money to bother. Like I said, if this were Syria or Iran it would be rather different. Thered be dedicated offices to detailing whose balls were tied to a battery and when, pouring it out to the media and any interest groups.

Little know fact number 037: Plants feel pain.

I would think that the difference between killing something to eat it and therefore continue to exist might be a LITTLE different than killing something merely for vanity and adornment -- though the reason doesn't make a lick of difference to the animal killed.

Both are equally unnecessary acts of cruelty towards animals for human gain. You don't need to kill animals to exist as little as you need to kill them to keep yourself warm or pretty - it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of people out there continue to exist without animals having to die, especially on an industrial scale. The "difference" only lies in those who are too lazy and/or selfish and/or jerkish to give up their flesh and secretion consumption.

Both are equally unnecessary acts of cruelty towards animals for human gain. You don't need to kill animals to exist as little as you need to kill them to keep yourself warm or pretty - it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of people out there continue to exist without animals having to die, especially on an industrial scale. The "difference" only lies in those who are too lazy and/or selfish and/or jerkish to give up their flesh and secretion consumption.He put it best. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill)

Their abuse of people, for one. Taiwan and Tibet, for another. And shipping toxic food products and toys, for a third.

Aren't all of those issues abuses of people?

He put it best. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill)

Maddox? People still read that boring hack? How 2002. Do you have hampsterdance to show me now? That dancing baby? Some other meme?

Maddox? People still read that boring hack? How 2002. Do you have hampsterdance to show me now? That dancing baby? Some other meme?None of which concerns the point actually raised (You being a hypocrite with an attitude problem so far disconnected from reality, we might as well consider you a hallucination), which you're kinda... Ignoring...

Well, I didn't exactly expect better from you, but still.

None of which concerns the point actually raised (You being a hypocrite with an attitude problem so far disconnected from reality, we might as well consider you a hallucination), which you're kinda... Ignoring...

Well, I didn't exactly expect better from you, but still.

You expect me to read something by Maddox? As I said, this ain't 2002 and I ain't in the business of lending weight to has-been internet celebrities. I guess it's comforting for him to still know he has a following, though. Maybe there's hope for Ellen Fleiss and that Turkish "me love you" guy.

You expect me to read something by Maddox? As I said, this ain't 2002 and I ain't in the business of lending weight to has-been internet celebrities. I guess it's comforting for him to still know he has a following, though. Maybe there's hope for Ellen Fleiss and that Turkish "me love you" guy.Alright. If you have to be a prick who doesn't want to have his little pink bubble destroyed by reality, lets go with this (http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html).

Actually, we can expand on it a little. You think you happily live without animals suffering for it? What about the streets & sidewalks you use, the house you live in? Habitat destruction. The electricity you use? No matter the source, it does kill animals - windturbines rip birds apart, dams are destructing habitats on fantastic scales, fossil fuels combine several issues, nuclear power doesn't even need to be mentioned...

Everything you own requires labour, requires space, requires energy to be produced. All these things do in turn use up natural resources, which in turn kills animals. From the second you were conceived on, you were sucking on mother nature's tit, consuming its wealth to be alive.

There's exactly two possibilities

a) Your existence kills other lifeforms or
b) You're dead

Deal with it, and just for once, don't try to preach about your alleged moral superiority which only exists in your hilarious imagination in the first place. If your (Distant) ancestors hadn't been omnivores, they'd never have developed the intelligence you're now abusing by spreading idiocy on the 'net.You might as well be a bit thankful for them taking the nutrient-road requiring a bit more brain than eating plants (When your food runs away, you need a bit more brain to be fed), thus enabling you to be a little more than a cow.

That you don't actually want to be more than a cow is an entirely secondary matter.

He put it best. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill)
In harvesting animals may die, that in unavoidable. However, we can minimize how much meat we eat. For example, say I have a vegetarian dinner tonight (which I will, if I do in fact have a dinner) and my family has chicken. For simplicities stake lets say I only have one type of food (unrealistic, but apparently you have trouble with simple concepts so I'll dumb it down). Now, lets say this food is corn. To harvest an intire feild maybe 4 rabbits 5 rats and 10 feild mice die (I'm being very liberal, most animals would run off) per how many corn per feild? Let's say 5000? So between 5000 people 19 animals die so I kill 0.004 of an animal. It has been free for it's whole life and was not tortured but died swiftly. Now, lets say between my family a chicken dies. They each kill 0.25 of an animal each. This animal has been confined its whole life.
I sound a lot less horrible. I have done all I can not to harm anything, as I still have to survive. My family has cause a lot more death then me.
Now, add to this that a lot of livestock that is shut up in inhumane conditions iits whole life will recieve corn or grain from a feild. Thus you would be consuming
1. All the animals that have died to provide that animal with it's nutrients for iits entire life.
And
2. That animal.

Now, let me say I dislike PETA's in your face "murderer" stance I am against them. But that guy is far more of a... what was the phrase "pompous cock" than any vegetarian that I know.

Also: Millions of animals die per year from harvesting?

184 million metric tons of meat are consumed each year. This is far greater than the amount of animals who for a vegetarian/vegan.



http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number61.htm

Both are equally unnecessary acts of cruelty towards animals for human gain. You don't need to kill animals to exist as little as you need to kill them to keep yourself warm or pretty - it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of people out there continue to exist without animals having to die, especially on an industrial scale. The "difference" only lies in those who are too lazy and/or selfish and/or jerkish to give up their flesh and secretion consumption.
You're right, but for most of history that wasn't really possible. It's only possible now because of the interconnected powerful economies of the world and the importation and exportation of vegetables, fruits, and other such foods.

In other words, you can thank the United States, the European Union, and the other powerful economies for giving the privilege of not having to use animal products.

In harvesting animals may die, that in unavoidable. However, we can minimize how much meat we eat.This you can. Unfortunately, mimimising your meat consumption doesn't necessarily minimise animal deaths.

Not to mention that it definitely doesn't minimise species' deaths. Monocultures - in fact, agriculture in general - is about the worst habitat thinkable - New York or Berlin provide more species with living space than corn fields do. Maybe, just maybe the number of dead rodents per square kilometre of corn farm is lower than the number of animals needed for a proper, omnivorous diet.

But in creating the corn field, genocide was commited, dozens of species locally eradicated.

And I'm not so sure that this is the idea behind vegetarism.

[...]This animal has been confined its whole life.Well, personally I prefer to pay a little more for my chickens to get the ones living 'Free' ('Free' being relative, of course), since they taste better...

Now, let me say I dislike PETA's in your face "murderer" stance I am against them. But that guy is far more of a... what was the phrase "pompous cock" than any vegetarian that I know.*Points at Fass*

*Points at Fass*

Please don't accuse Fass of being a member of PETA. He might have some rather odd opinions when it comes to animals, but he's hardly a PETA member.

For your first point refer to my last post.

And...


*Points at Fass*


Both you and those that you've linked to portray yourselves as worse than Fass right now.

This stuff happens everywhere. There are much more important things China needs to fix up.

Actually, this is just as important.

I questioned the wisdom of holding the event there from day one, and nothing has caused me to change my mind thus far. While one must put aside cultural biases regarding food and such like, the treatment of their own population, as well as the Tibetans, strikes me as being far too brutal, harsh and repressive to hold an international event like this there. If this was Syria or Iran hosting the games, there'd be far more controversy.

Yeah, honestly.

While in the rest of the world the animal husbandry industry does equally horrible acts towards other animals, but I guess only the cute and cuddly ones are worthy of boycotts and the others not worth you giving up your chicken cutlets or leather shoes or any other animal product you use over?

Yeah, we treat our food the same shitty way.

The Chinese are such racists against everything. It's a good thing Japan was the one that dominated Asia and not China. They really need to clean up their act. Now I'm starting to understand why this Psych teacher in my school doesn't buy stuff that is made in China. They have such utter disregard for just about everything.

The Chinese are such racists against everything. It's a good thing Japan was the one that dominated Asia and not China. They really need to clean up their act. Now I'm starting to understand why this Psych teacher in my school doesn't buy stuff that is made in China. They have such utter disregard for just about everything.

Nobody made any such statement. Nobody referred to "the chinese" outside the context of their Government.

I would hate to think that we would get more upset at China for the way it treats animals instead of how it treats human beings.

I don't really know what the hard on is for china. I personally wouldn't choose to live there, but, in general, it seems to be heading in the right direction as a nation.

If you compare conditions in china during the 1960s to today, things are clearly much better and the population far happier.

Basically, most of the criticism seems to be motivated by anger that the chinese government isn't just like us. Xenophobia really.

(For the record, I wouldn't put up with Tibet or Taiwan either).

We held the Olympics in the USSR back in 1980, and they were a lot more repressive and abusive than China is today. The thing is, China will not change unless the outside world continues to influence it and show it the benefits of a society based on democracy, human rights, humane treatment of animals and the environment, and any number of other good aspects of democratic societies.

Don't care. Don't Care.

Do

Not

Care.

Animals are animals. I enjoy eating them. I care nothing about their "suffering". They (collectively) are lesser species.

We held the Olympics in the USSR back in 1980, and they were a lot more repressive and abusive than China is today.

And, in 1980, china was far worse than the USSR in terms of living conditions and repression.

Overall, it is heading in the right direction, and really doing it very well. As I said, I probably would not live there, but there is no question that it is not vastly improving in most respects.

Frankly, a hands off approach about internal issues is probably the best thing.

You expect me to read something by Maddox? As I said, this ain't 2002 and I ain't in the business of lending weight to has-been internet celebrities. I guess it's comforting for him to still know he has a following, though. Maybe there's hope for Ellen Fleiss and that Turkish "me love you" guy.

Fact: facts erode over time.

Indeed, by 2012 the idea that facts erode over time will no longer be a fact.

While in the rest of the world the animal husbandry industry does equally horrible acts towards other animals, but I guess only the cute and cuddly ones are worthy of boycotts and the others not worth you giving up your chicken cutlets or leather shoes or any other animal product you use over?
It's the same issue with the seal hunt shit. As though only the cute ones deserve to live. Although that video definitely made me cry.

They oughn't to have the Olympics for a number of reasons, not least of which is their dubious human rights conduct, wilful disregard for the environment, and what seems likely to be systematic drugging of athletes. However, being nasty to cats is not especially high on this list.

Animals are animals. I enjoy eating them. I care nothing about their "suffering". They (collectively) are lesser species.
Humans are animals.

And, in 1980, china was far worse than the USSR in terms of living conditions and repression.

Far, far poorer; in fact, if we compare China today with the USSR in 1980, the Soviets still had a better life overall than the average person in China today. Mind you, this is debatable, given the vast difference in quantity and quality of the goods available to citizens; in China, if you want a car and can afford it, there's not going to be a big delay and you'll have plenty of choices, whereas in the USSR there were endless waiting lists and limited styles to choose from.

It had just introduced its first truly capitalist market in 1976 with the creation of an agricultural market and established the first SEZs in Shenzhen et al in 1978, so it was pretty similar to North Korea today (although still a lot better off, even before opening up its markets).

Overall, it is heading in the right direction, and really doing it very well. As I said, I probably would not live there, but there is no question that it is not vastly improving in most respects.

I agree. Now, 30 years from now, China will probably be unrecognizable compared to the current state of affairs, just like 2007 China is a world apart from 1977 China.

In fact, it may happen even faster than that; political change will accelerate along with economic change, so we may see a major move towards a democratic system in several years and outright emergence of democracy in another decade.

Frankly, a hands off approach about internal issues is probably the best thing.

I'd have to agree. We should nudge them towards democracy and human rights, but do so by focusing on the positive benefits for China as opposed to trying to threaten or cajole them in to changing. The government of China isn't stupid; they've already tested democratic processes on a small scale, and they appear to work quite well (at least in comparison to the existing system), so it's hard to imagine them holding on to democratic centralism simply out of nostalgia or desire for power.

Humans are animals.

By animals, I mean the popular definition, not the scientific one. I guess "Lesser Species" would be more correct. Either way, simple semantics.

By animals, I mean the popular definition, not the scientific one. I guess "Lesser Species" would be more correct. Either way, simple semantics.
Considering how members of the "greater species" act toward others, I wouldn't necessarily consider being among the "lesser ones" a bad thing. I mean, at least lions don't do that to their prey.

Both are equally unnecessary acts of cruelty towards animals for human gain. You don't need to kill animals to exist as little as you need to kill them to keep yourself warm or pretty - it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of people out there continue to exist without animals having to die, especially on an industrial scale. The "difference" only lies in those who are too lazy and/or selfish and/or jerkish to give up their flesh and secretion consumption.

So - anyone who eats meat is lazy, selfish or jerkish?

Are you a new kind of gay now that you have found out how to get all the way up your own arse?

Considering how members of the "greater species" act toward others, I wouldn't necessarily consider being among the "lesser ones" a bad thing. I mean, at least lions don't do that to their prey.

It comes with being so much more Evolved then other species. With no competition for survival from others, we fight within our species.

This you can. Unfortunately, mimimising your meat consumption doesn't necessarily minimise animal deaths.

Not to mention that it definitely doesn't minimise species' deaths. Monocultures - in fact, agriculture in general - is about the worst habitat thinkable - New York or Berlin provide more species with living space than corn fields do. Maybe, just maybe the number of dead rodents per square kilometre of corn farm is lower than the number of animals needed for a proper, omnivorous diet.

But in creating the corn field, genocide was commited, dozens of species locally eradicated.
Your point would be all fine and dandy if cattle weren't fed from agriculture as well. So basically people who eat meat kill the same number of animals as a vegetarian in the thresher (probably more actually, due to the whole 10% consumption sort of deal) plus they kill animals intentionally.

It comes with being so much more Evolved then other species. With no competition for survival from others, we fight within our species.
1. I wouldn't call torturing other human beings and animals evolved.
2. Animals fight within their species.
3. Again, how we treat other species on this planet is rather despicable. What we do to this planet is despicable. How we treat other members of our own species is despicable. I don't see how any of this is a good thing or makes us "better", "more enlightened" or "more evolved" than other species.

1. I wouldn't call torturing other human beings and animals evolved.
2. Animals fight within their species.
3. Again, how we treat other species on this planet is rather despicable. What we do to this planet is despicable. How we treat other members of our own species is despicable. I don't see how any of this is a good thing or makes us "better", "more enlightened" or "more evolved" than other species.

How can we not be more evolved. We have tools. We have organized societies vastly beyond the scope of what lesser species have. We have harnessed energy from the most basic of material.Can you honestly say that we are not more advanced and evolved then the Lesser Species?

How can we not be more evolved. We have tools. We have organized societies vastly beyond the scope of what lesser species have. We have harnessed energy from the most basic of material.Can you honestly say that we are not more advanced and evolved then the Lesser Species?

Other animals have tools.

We know relatively little about how other animals organise their societies.

Harnessing basic materials is hardly the best argument for being civlised, much less 'evolved'. Our attempts to harness our environment almost always end up being destructive - wile millions of other species live in realtive harmony with their environment. You could argue, we fail in comparison.


And, of course, all 'evolved' animals are equally 'evolved'. To suggest that something is 'more evolved' is to suggest that their is a universal comparative scale of evolvedness.

We shouldn't be hosting the Olympics period. Also.. didn't we just have it not many years ago?

How can we not be more evolved. We have tools. We have organized societies vastly beyond the scope of what lesser species have. We have harnessed energy from the most basic of material.Can you honestly say that we are not more advanced and evolved then the Lesser Species?
Well, we're definitely more advanced in terms of technology. That doesn't mean that we're more evolved. To say that we are more evolved implies that evolution has a direction.

And again, our advanced technology and organized societies don't make up for the fact that, as a species, we're total cunts.

And, of course, all 'evolved' animals are equally 'evolved'. To suggest that something is 'more evolved' is to suggest that their is a universal comparative scale of evolvedness.

I think it depends on whether evolution has a direction; if we look at increased complexity as the primary direction of evolution, humans are at the top.

If there is no direction to evolution, humans are certainly more intelligent, more advanced, and more capable than any other species, but that doesn't mean we're more evolved than others. If our environment changes to one where current humans are not optimal for survival, we can go extinct if our species can't adapt.

I would never wear cat-fur. Too much static.

And let's hope cat-skinning isn't a new Olympic event.

I think it depends on whether evolution has a direction; if we look at increased complexity as the primary direction of evolution, humans are at the top.
I don't think that we're the most complex organisms, if it's even possible to measure complexity in an objective fashion.

humans are certainly more intelligent,
Except for possibly dolphins...

more advanced,
Oh, look, we can build things! omgz, that makes us the best evah!

and more capable
...of destroying the world and acting in cruel manners toward everyone and everything else...

If our environment changes to one where current humans are not optimal for survival, we can go extinct if our species can't adapt.
Hell, the only reason we live in most of the places we do is not because we've evolved to live there but because we've built buildings and made clothing that allow us to live in places. Do you think a naked person would last very long in the arctic?

I don't think that we're the most complex organisms, if it's even possible to measure complexity in an objective fashion.


Except for possibly dolphins...


Oh, look, we can build things! omgz, that makes us the best evah!


...of destroying the world and acting in cruel manners toward everyone and everything else...


Hell, the only reason we live in most of the places we do is not because we've evolved to live there but because we've built buildings and made clothing that allow us to live in places. Do you think a naked person would last very long in the arctic?

And now I don't need to say anything...

It kind of amuses me that people feel they can claim with some measure of confidence that we are the most intelligent, socially adept or whatever lifeform, when we have thus far singularly been unable to really interact with anything but humans...

Yes, of that rarified pool (just us) we are probably the 'best'.

those aren't pets.

I don't think that we're the most complex organisms, if it's even possible to measure complexity in an objective fashion.

We're the only organisms that can demonstrably measure complexity as well as understand what it means, so it makes sense that we'd be at the top of the scale.

Except for possibly dolphins...

Had humans not evolved, dolphins would have probably emerged as the dominant species on Earth. No argument there.

Oh, look, we can build things! omgz, that makes us the best evah!

It's a pretty big deal. Building structures requires a lot of knowledge about a lot of different things all being perfectly coordinated together to make sure the structure is built properly and when it is needed.

...of destroying the world and acting in cruel manners toward everyone and everything else...

Every species is cruel. Humans have just developed the ability to be cruel enough to destroy many, many more species than just ourselves. However, we have also developed the ability to prevent it from happening.

Hell, the only reason we live in most of the places we do is not because we've evolved to live there but because we've built buildings and made clothing that allow us to live in places. Do you think a naked person would last very long in the arctic?

No, but it's irrelevant. Technological evolution is, in many ways, superior to biological evolution and it's shown this fact by the ability of humans to rise to near-total dominance over other species in less than 1 million years, and of that million years the vast majority of growth has happened in the last 10,000 of them. That's a blink of an eye when you compare it to the 3.9 billion years it took for humanity to evolve in the first place.

Technological evolution happens a lot faster and is a lot more accessible to the entire species than a biological trait, which can take hundreds of generations to be common. Comparatively, it took only 20 years for the computer to become a common feature of human civilization and the internet only a decade, if that.

If there is no direction to evolution, humans are certainly more intelligent, more advanced, and more capable than any other species, but that doesn't mean we're more evolved than others. If our environment changes to one where current humans are not optimal for survival, we can go extinct if our species can't adapt.

I think there is no question that humans are in the top few species for 'fitness' on the planet. We are everywhere and in all conditions pretty much.

I suppose that the parasitical/symbiotic bacteria and such we carry hold the same distinction however. Still, insofar as land dwelling vertebrates go we have to be about no.1 on the charts. Not that it means anything.

(I would imagine in terms of total biomass the most successfully adapted organism is some type of sea dwelling thing).

It's all subjective really though.

No, but it's irrelevant. Technological evolution is, in many ways, superior to biological evolution and it's shown this fact by the ability of humans to rise to near-total dominance over other species in less than 1 million years, and of that million years the vast majority of growth has happened in the last 10,000 of them. That's a blink of an eye when you compare it to the 3.9 billion years it took for humanity to evolve in the first place.

Technological evolution happens a lot faster and is a lot more accessible to the entire species than a biological trait, which can take hundreds of generations to be common. Comparatively, it took only 20 years for the computer to become a common feature of human civilization and the internet only a decade, if that.

Indeed. We are the only ones with a shot at a singularity event at present. Of course, said event will be very bad, or very good. But no other species even has a look in at creating one.

We're the only organisms that can demonstrably measure complexity as well as understand what it means, so it makes sense that we'd be at the top of the scale.
Being able to understand what complexity means does not make an organism complex. In terms of genetic complexity, the marbled lungfish wins. If you want to learn more, go here: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-04/1080923553.An.r.html

Had humans not evolved, dolphins would have probably emerged as the dominant species on Earth. No argument there.
Actually, this also isn't likely. They don't have opposable thumbs and live in the water. Thus they can't really use tools and are rather limited by their habitat. That doesn't mean that they're still not smarter than we are.

It's a pretty big deal. Building structures requires a lot of knowledge about a lot of different things all being perfectly coordinated together to make sure the structure is built properly and when it is needed.
Our ability to do this doesn't make us any better than any other species.

Every species is cruel.
Yeah, every species captures its prey, cages it, forces it to breed and then keeps its offspring captive, torturing it, removing parts of its body that are inconvenient and then kills them en masse for excessive consumption, often throwing away much of the kill rather than use it.

Humans have just developed the ability to be cruel enough to destroy many, many more species than just ourselves. However, we have also developed the ability to prevent it from happening.
Yeah, when exactly do we use the latter ability?

Indeed. We are the only ones with a shot at a singularity event at present. Of course, said event will be very bad, or very good. But no other species even has a look in at creating one.
...no other species that we know of...

...no other species that we know of...

Well, on this planet. It's quite possible that other species elsewhere have had singularity events. But then if you think of Fermi's Paradox, then you don't want to consider the implications of a singularity event.

It's a pretty big deal. Building structures requires a lot of knowledge about a lot of different things all being perfectly coordinated together to make sure the structure is built properly and when it is needed.


Congratulations. I had been reading all of these posts thinking you were for real. It hadn't even occured to me it was parody till we got here.

Congratulations. I had been reading all of these posts thinking you were for real. It hadn't even occured to me it was parody till we got here.

So you are saying that cathedrals are part of our extended phenotype, or that beaver damns aren't part of theirs?

Because either way it is a controversial position.

Eating animals is both unnecessary and causes suffering.

You're existence is too, so is mine. I'd just like to throw that out there.

Actually, this also isn't likely. They don't have opposable thumbs and live in the water. Thus they can't really use tools and are rather limited by their habitat. That doesn't mean that they're still not smarter than we are.

They could've grown them, although that's never going to happen now because we like to kill any animal that deviates from the status quo.

They could've grown them, although that's never going to happen now because we like to kill any animal that deviates from the status quo.
We don't kill mutated wild dolphins.

We don't kill mutated wild dolphins.

Not usually dolphins, but if it isn't normal we tend to not let it live, or at the very least capture it so it doesn't end up breeding.

So you are saying that cathedrals are part of our extended phenotype, or that beaver damns aren't part of theirs?

Because either way it is a controversial position.

I hadn't even thought 'parody' until I ran across: "...Building structures requires a lot of knowledge about a lot of different things all being perfectly coordinated together to make sure the structure is built properly and when it is needed..."

Ants, birds... etc... I realised we were being taken for a ride.

I hadn't even thought 'parody' until I ran across: "...Building structures requires a lot of knowledge about a lot of different things all being perfectly coordinated together to make sure the structure is built properly and when it is needed..."

Ants, birds... etc... I realised we were being taken for a ride.

So you are saying we can't help but build cathedrals?

Really, there is a huge difference amongst the building behaviour of the phenotypes you have just described, and the building behaviour of mankind.

Though I suspect we have already reached the far shores of reason.

I would never wear cat-fur. Too much static.

And let's hope cat-skinning isn't a new Olympic event.

Well, the same people that let in Synchronised swimming are the same ones who wanted to get rid of Boxing, so with that in mind, its not impossible. I think its going to be an all Asian final in the dog-skinning as well, unless those stories anout certain US states are true....

there isn't one soverign nation on planet earth that shouldn't be banned for something. including the u.s. for deamonizing everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper.

diplomacy is not however a luxury but a practical reality.

i don't know what the op ment by banning, but there is no soverign hierarchy i voluntarily support. or nonsoverign hierarcy either for that matter.

=^^=
.../\...

I hadn't even thought 'parody' until I ran across: "...Building structures requires a lot of knowledge about a lot of different things all being perfectly coordinated together to make sure the structure is built properly and when it is needed..."

Ants, birds... etc... I realised we were being taken for a ride.

There's a big difference. Ants and birds built nests to live and reproduce in, not for pleasure, a higher purpose, or aesthetics. They're extremely well-designed, but completely utilitarian.

In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, almost all of the stuff we build is rather wasteful; all those extra resources put in to painting, filigreeing, carving, and polishing our structures to make them more attractive add nothing to the effectiveness of the building at providing its most basic purpose, and yet we do it for reasons based entirely on a spiritual or aesthetic need within us.

It's the fact that humans build for pleasure and aesthetics rather than just utilitarian services that distinguishes us.

Animal rights is the most ridiculous thing ever created, seriously, they are flipping non-sentiment beings.

Animal rights is the most ridiculous thing ever created, seriously, they are flipping non-sentiment beings.

Except dolphins, whales, primates, and elephants, among other species.

"How we behave toward cats here below determines our status in heaven."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Not easy to watch - Pet abuse in China. (http://sonia076.multiply.com/video/item/74/REPASSE_PARA_O_PLANETA_INTEIRO_VER_QUE_MALDADE_CHOREI_DE_VER)

I think we should ban the beijing olympics over this.

Right. Because we don't do the exact same thing to chickens here in North America.

Had humans not evolved, dolphins would have probably emerged as the dominant species on Earth. No argument there.



Dolphins live in an environment where it's disadvantageous to evolve something as non-hydrodynamic as an opposable thumb. Before you get a big complex brain, an opposable thumb in an aquatic environment is worse than useless.

Additionally, in their environment, even if they had an opposable thumbs, it is impossible to harness the power of fire. Kinda necessary for much of our technological progress.

Also, dolphins don't really need anything. They're quite well adapted for their environment. Whereas we, by contrast, are unequipped for a multitude of environments that we've only populated because we've figured out how to adapt the environment to us (using our opposable thumbs and in many cases fire as well). Try dropping a naked person in the arctic tundra and see how long they last.

Anyway, their treatment of cats is about the millionth reason the Olympics should not be in a place with such a craptastic Authoritarian government like China's.

Animal rights is the most ridiculous thing ever created, seriously, they are flipping non-sentiment beings.


What about when Doves cry?

Animal rights is the most ridiculous thing ever created, seriously, they are flipping non-sentiment beings.

I assume you mean non-sentient.

That line of "reasoning" is the height of absurdity. I don't usually refer to other people's quotes, but Jeremy Bentham got it spot-on right in the 19th century when he said that whether or not they think is beside the point; what matters is that they suffer. The ability to suffer (physically and psychologically) is unrelated to the ability to think through self-reflective awareness.

Your "argument" (if one can even dignify it with that name) seems to derive from a poor attempt at justifying unnecessary cruelty to animals. "Let's see, we know they experience agonising pain, but we want to continue subjecting them to horrible pain... Ah, I know! Let's justify it by the fact that their sentience is in doubt. It's a complete non-sequitur, but most people will jump at anything that even remotely ressembles justification for their own cruel selfishness."

At any rate many believe that the Olympics will improve China's behaviour.
read: China will momentarily suspend and/or hide it's more horrific abuses during the Olympics but then continue on as normal afterwards.
And we'll let them cause we want/demand/expect cheap toys, clothes and computers.

read: China will momentarily suspend and/or hide it's more horrific abuses during the Olympics but then continue on as normal afterwards.
And we'll let them cause we want/demand/expect cheap toys, clothes and computers.

I didn't say I agree with those who believe it will help, however even if the Olympics themselves have only a minor (if any) impact, I do believe trade and interaction with the developed and democratised world only helps. Any attempt to isolate China would be doomed for us and them.

"How we behave toward cats here below determines our status in heaven."
-Robert A. Heinlein
[/URL]

I think we should ban the beijing olympics over this.

Chthulu will take care of the cat abusers. Lovecraft was very clear about the importance of cats.:D

I didn't say I agree with those who believe it will help, however even if the Olympics themselves have only a minor (if any) impact, I do believe trade and interaction with the developed and democratised world only helps. Any attempt to isolate China would be doomed for us and them.
very good point. I guess one possible positive outcome from the Beijing Olympics could be more interaction between the locals and foreigners visiting China for the games. Having spent time in China I feel safe in saying that most of them are intolerant and distrustful of foreigners - but most of that intolerance/racism is due to: 1. Almost zero contact with the outside world, and 2. The propaganda the PRC tells the local populace about the outside world. Some of the propaganda is so outrageous it's laughable*, but as state-controlled media is their only source of information it's generally believed (think how the US might be if FOX was THE only source of news and facts for two generations).
More contact could well lead to greater tolerance and understanding, which in turn could lead to the masses questioning the PRC authority more.


*for eg. A Chinese woman from Guilan I met when I was in Tibet told me that sex ed in school consisted of telling them that every male foreigner who comes into China has HIV and wants to infect as many Chinese men and women as he can. It's one way the PRC tries in order to discourage contact between locals and foreigners.

very good point. I guess one possible positive outcome from the Beijing Olympics could be more interaction between the locals and foreigners visiting China for the games. Having spent time in China I feel safe in saying that most of them are intolerant and distrustful of foreigners - but most of that intolerance/racism is due to: 1. Almost zero contact with the outside world, and 2. The propaganda the PRC tells the local populace about the outside world. Some of the propaganda is so outrageous it's laughable*, but as state-controlled media is their only source of information it's generally believed (think how the US might be if FOX was THE only source of news and facts for two generations).
More contact could well lead to greater tolerance and understanding, which in turn could lead to the masses questioning the PRC authority more.


*for eg. A Chinese woman from Guilan I met when I was in Tibet told me that sex ed in school consisted of telling them that every male foreigner who comes into China has HIV and wants to infect as many Chinese men and women as he can. It's one way the PRC tries in order to discourage contact between locals and foreigners.

Very interesting. With more foreign media entering the country also the "minders" who usually follow journalists around are being lifted. Hopefully this will eventually diffuse with the local media. Will take years though.