What does "intelligence" or "niceness" have to do with it?

[Divedoggie]

I guess its ok for me to walk into your workspace and shoot you because you have the wrong job too...

Yeah maybe if you find my job so offensive, and believe that my job is murderous to those that you respect and find inspirational. Maybe you do have the right to walk into my workspace and shoot me.

 

[Kim]

But I am saying that it is justifiable to equate some animals with humans due to their intelligence.

There it is right there....... I really don't understand that at all. Apart from anything else why on earth do you only equate some animals? How do you measure the difference? I really believe that anyone who thinks like that has no other moral choice than to become vegan vegetarian. And all this business of being prepared to differentiate between "intelligent". therefore somehow worthy, and "dumb". so it's OK to hang it up by it's hind legs and slit it's throat to let it bleed to death - is completely beyond me.

Talk about self-justification.

When whales and dolphins start sending their young to school and teaching them to read & write, start building libraries...universities....research labs, let me know. Then I'll probably find it easier to equate animal intelligence with human intelligence.

Meanwhile it sounds like Michael Jackson playing with a chimp.

 

[Mr.X]

There it is right there....... I really don't understand that at all. Apart from anything else why on earth do you only equate some animals? How do you measure the difference? I really believe that anyone who thinks like that has no other moral choice than to become vegan vegetarian. And all this business of being prepared to differentiate between "intelligent". therefore somehow worthy, and "dumb". so it's OK to hang it up by it's hind legs and slit it's throat to let it bleed to death - is completely beyond me.

Talk about self-justification.

When whales and dolphins start sending their young to school and teaching them to read & write, start building libraries...universities....research labs, let me know. Then I'll probably find it easier to equate animal intelligence with human intelligence.

Meanwhile it sounds like Michael Jackson playing with a chimp.

You cannot quantify what you, or I do not know. Intelligence, is subjective itself. IQ tests are effectively non-scientific and measure only a small % of what we consider as intelligence. Let's examine the domain of non-verbal communication. Our inability to communicate in a liquid medium essentially makes us a mutes/retards. Does this mean we're less smart? First-hand experience with critters plays a huge factor in POV. Without it, how can one effectively make a learned comment without relying on stats. or extant data? Might be OK for census takers, but not for conservationists, or field biologists.

Come on' this issue of intelligence is again in a narrow-band perspective. The accountant aspect of what Japan is doing "legally" or "illegally" pisses off a lot of people because it touches, and skirts the four factors I mentioned which are all about respect for the animals we harvest. None of which the whaling industry in Japan does. No respect, you piss people off and endanger others (whales/dolphin).

X

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

When whales and dolphins start sending their young to school and teaching them to read & write, start building libraries...universities....research labs, let me know. Then I'll probably find it easier to equate animal intelligence with human intelligence.

That right there is the rationale our European forefathers used to justify enslaving Africans and wiping out the indigenous inhabitants of North America. In effect, since they had no formal education system, nor "our" level of technology, they were not human.

Is education ... or technology ... a reasonable measure of intelligence?

Is it justifiable to apply human standards to another species?

Does it even matter?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Kim]

You cannot quantify what you, or I do not know. Intelligence, is subjective itself.

Exactly - but people are using it as a reason to make hard judgments about which animals it's OK to kill - and which aren't.

 

[Kim]

That right there is the rationale our European forefathers used to justify enslaving Africans and wiping out the indigenous inhabitants of North America. In effect, since they had no formal education system, nor "our" level of technology, they were not human.

Is education ... or technology ... a reasonable measure of intelligence?

Is it justifiable to apply human standards to another species?

Does it even matter?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I disagree - the main cause of the carnage was religion - as it still is today.

Apart from that it was mainly greed.

In those days they also saw this as a species issue - not race. They simply didn't believe we were the same animal.

We know differently now. It's scientifically clear, the difference between species and race.

And no - I don't think it's justifiable to apply human standards to another animal, just as I don't think it's justifiable to apply intelligence or niceness standards between animals which lead to one being too smart or too cute to kill, while the other is perfectly acceptable.

I find that so morally repugnant and wrong....so reflective of some of the greatest human injustices and genocides we've ever witnessed....so hypocritical....like I said...

I really don't get it.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Actually I think the opposite is true. I think that equating some animals and their behaviour with humans is basically what a lot of people do who think hunting them is therefore so bad. I certainly don't do it at all.

As for social bonding...... lot's of animals do that and it's never been a reason not to hunt them. Some dolphins ideas of social bonding include the practice of infanticide - not exactly something I'd equate with human behaviour.

A study of human history from a cross cultural perspective will (sadly) show a long history of infanticide - in many cases for exactly the same reason it is believed to be practiced by some dolphin species.

One could very much argue the "humaness" of that behavior.

-----

In general we as humans strive very hard to justify our existance as the dominant species with, to paraphrase some religious beliefs, "dominion over all other living creatures". We once defined being human as the ability to both use and make tools. This was commonly accepted until chimpanzees were observed stripping the stems off a long twig to create a tool long and thin enough to poke into a termite mount to extract termites. We, in our very human arrogance, moved the finish line farther back to exclude them.

This example highlights our predjudice that links intelligence (and the "human" rights that should accompany that intelligence) to the possession of fingers and opposable thumbs. It also highlights our committment to changing the definition of human intelligence in whatever manner is needed to exclude everything else that walks, crawls, flys or swims on the planet.

Language has also often been used as a defining trait and we attempt to exclude neanderthals from our direct human lineage, despite their larger brain, on the basis of evidence that suggests they may not have had quite as large a vocal range as modern man.

Howver if you rate modern man by language complexity, he scores on average about an 8 on a 1 to 10 scale with dolphins also scoring an 8 and humpback whales scoring a solid 10. Darn...looks like we are going to have to change that definition of intelligence as well.

One thing to rememebr is that modern man has only been around for about 40,000 years (100,000 to 150,000 years at the outside if you get generous and include neanderthal). That is a drop in the evolutionary bucket compared to most whale and dolphin species.

When you condsider both their longevity as a species as well as their lack of opposable thumbs, you have to consider that it is entirely reasonable for them to have acheived our level of intelligence given their brain size and language ability and that the odds are exceptionally good, if we leave them alone, they will out last both our species and our opposbale thumb driven tool using culture - which in the end will most likely be the cause of our own demise.

I personally have the sincere hope that they are still around some day to have the last laugh at the arrogance, pride, greed and stupidity that our eventually to be extinct species calls "human".

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Aw hell, I don't know Kim. It's OK to kill all animals in terms of relative morality (moral relativity).

"...And God created the heavens and the earth....and gave unto man dominion over the animals..." (Genesis) etc. etc.

"Hard judgements about which animals it's OK to kill" (your post above) are made based on profit and economics. Pigs, cows, fish, whales, etc. can be sold. No one is lining up to purchase lemurs or lemur parts, hence no one is conducting annual lemur hunts.

Not talking about anomalous behavior such as the occasional weirdo who tortures leeches or something, but generally speaking mankind's use of animals/killing of animals appears to be primarily profit-driven.

FWIW...


P.S. Can anyone say "Anthropomorphizing"??

 

[Kim]

A study of human history from a cross cultural perspective will (sadly) show a long history of infanticide - in many cases for exactly the same reason it is beleived to be practiced by some dolphin species.

One could very much argue the "humaness" of that behavior.

-----

In general we as humans strive very hard to justify our existance as the dominant species with, to paraphrase some religious beliefs, "dominion over all other living creatures. We once defined being human as the ability to both make and use tools. This was commonly accepted until chimpanzees were observed stripping the stems off a long twig to create a tool long and thin enough to poke into a termite mount to extract termites. We, in our very human arrogance, moved the finish line farther back to exclude them.

This example highlights our predjudice that connects intelligence (and the "human" rights that should accompany that intelligence) with fingers and opposable thumbs. It also highlights are committment to changing the definition of human intelligence in whatever manner is needed to exclude everything else that walks, crawls, flys or swims on the planet.

Language has also often been used as a defining trait and we attempt to exclude neanderthals from our direct human lineage, despite their larger brain, on the basis of evidence that suggests they may not have had quite as large a vocal range as modern man.

Howver if you rate modern man by language complexity, he scores on average about an 8 on a 1 to 10 scale with dolphins also scoring an 8 and humpback whales scoring a solid 10. Darn...looks like we are going to have to change that definition of intelligence as well.

As my OP said "What does intelligence have to do with it?"

I really don't care how intelligent another animal is. That's my point. WHY can anyone think that THIS is the measure of what it's OK to hunt, kill, and eat?

To me - if there is ANY justification to kill other mammals/animals for food there is really no honest way to differentiate between them. How intensive farming techniques are practiced throughout the so called "civilized" world are every bit as barbaric and cruel as what we've seen posted here. If you don't believe me, I'm 100% certain I can post videos of stuff that I'm quite sure would get pulled because of the violence, cruelity and utter inhumanity which chickens, pigs, cattle/calves, sheep ALL get treated with in the name of profit and the globalized food chain. Not to mention all our hunting fellow divers who are prepared to throw living animals into boiling water because they taste better like that!!!

And the only reason no one creates thread after thread about that is because of a perceived difference in intelligence!!!!!

Or cuteness!!!!

I don't get it.

 

[Kim]

Aw hell, I don't know Kim. It's OK to kill all animals in terms of relative morality (moral relativity).

"...And God created the heavens and the earth....and gave unto man dominion over the animals..." (Genesis) etc. etc.

"Hard judgements about which animals it's OK to kill" (your post above) are made based on profit and economics. Pigs, cows, fish, whales, etc. can be sold. No one is lining up to purchase lemurs or lemur parts, hence no one is conducting annual lemur hunts.

Not talking about anomalous behavior such as the occasional weirdo who tortures leeches or something, but generally speaking mankind's use of animals/killing of animals appears to be primarily profit-driven.

FWIW...


P.S. Can anyone say "Anthropomorphizing"??

Yeah.... I was writing at the same time as you....

Did you know there's even a battery farm that produces Tiger bits somewhere in China. It's been there for years.....
Save The Tiger Fund | Tiger Farm Images and Information for the Media
Bears and other stuff too.....

You're quite right - it's about the money, created by the demand. It's easy to get on a high horse about something that you aren't personally in the market for. It's totally different when it's a part of YOUR shopping cycle.