Mark B.: I will agree with you that majority of the commercial chicken industry behaves in a rather barbaric manner when it comes to their treatment of the chickens. While I absolutely deny animal rights in any way, shape or form, I cannot tolerate unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, the poultry industry has been more resistant to pressure than the beef industry was. However, change IS coming to the poultry industry. Barbaric brood cages are slowly being abandoned in a small number of companies. Without the chickens crammed into these cages, it will no longer be necessary to engage in beak clipping and foot clipping. The agent for the change in the poultry industry, as was the case earlier in the beef industry, is direct pressure brought against the END users <i.e. McDonalds, Burger King, etc.>. Under pressure from radical organizations, these companies in turn brought pressure on the beef slaughterhouses and forced them to modernize their facilities and submit to animal welfare audits. This has virtually ended cruelty in the beef industry <except at a few slaughterhouses serving GOVERNMENT customers>. This same process is now occuring in the poultry industry and I think you will see massive changes in a few years. The bottom line is that this change that has occured and that will occur, has not required so much as ONE piece of government regulation or involvement to bring about. It was all done using the force of consumer preference in the free market. Proof that the free market CAN and DOES bring about desired change.
I will agree with you that majority of the commercial chicken industry behaves in a rather barbaric manner when it comes to their treatment of the chickens. While I absolutely deny animal rights in any way, shape or form, I cannot tolerate unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, the poultry industry has been more resistant to pressure than the beef industry was. However, change IS coming to the poultry industry. Barbaric brood cages are slowly being abandoned in a small number of companies. Without the chickens crammed into these cages, it will no longer be necessary to engage in beak clipping and foot clipping.
The agent for the change in the poultry industry, as was the case earlier in the beef industry, is direct pressure brought against the END users <i.e. McDonalds, Burger King, etc.>. Under pressure from radical organizations, these companies in turn brought pressure on the beef slaughterhouses and forced them to modernize their facilities and submit to animal welfare audits. This has virtually ended cruelty in the beef industry <except at a few slaughterhouses serving GOVERNMENT customers>. This same process is now occuring in the poultry industry and I think you will see massive changes in a few years.
The bottom line is that this change that has occured and that will occur, has not required so much as ONE piece of government regulation or involvement to bring about. It was all done using the force of consumer preference in the free market. Proof that the free market CAN and DOES bring about desired change.
I like the idea of such a market-based solution, I really do. At the same time, if I come upon a man torturing a dog, I would feel entirely justified in stopping him, using whatever force was necessary. Frankly, I consider a man that would torture a dog to be worth rather less than the dog, which if treated well would desire naught but to love his master. I rather think most people would agree with me.
Input is a completely generic term. Its meaning varies with the context. In a physical system, input could simply mean one object colliding with another. In an electric circuit, input could mean current from a power source. In a human neurophysiological sense, inputs in neurons are understood as influx of cations(or sometimes anions) which eventually give rise to action potentials(or alternatively are inhibited from AP), because of changes in the membrane potential, which then travels along the length of the neuron and eventually results in the release of neurotransmitter into the synaptic cleft. What I described to you was an oversimplified version of the events for my ease. Nerves communicate in this way. Using this knowledge, scientists have determined vast neural circuits and have been able to conduct experiments demonstrated that certain types of mental activity correlate with increased neural activity in certain areas of the brain.
Nowadays we can mimic neural transmission well enough that prosthetics can operate from neural input from the brain.
There is something special and unique about biology. It seeks to explain how organisms operate using knowledge generated by empirical testing. Seeing that humans are organisms, we, and therefore our brains, should be explainable. I admit there are things well beyond our capacity. Your reasoning is lacking though. If our consciousness is the result of a series of different processes, then according to scientific logic only things created in a similar way, with similar intent, and with similar processes will result in something that resembles a human mind. A rock does not fit these criteria and therefore does not display anything resembling human consciousness. I can safely say no rock has intelligence and I wouldn't have to spend my entire life looking at every rock to make sure that's true. Science's strength relies in its predictability. What defines a rock is how it was created. If a rock was created in the exact same way a brain was created, then it would not be a rock because it wouldn't share any of the characteristics you would associate with a rock. It would be known as a brain.
Does it make any sense that arranging molecules in a certain way creates something as immaterial as consciousness? If we recreated all brain communication using computer software, would that program be conscious? If not, why not? What if we recreated all brain communication using a giant and complex system of rolling marbles? Would that be conscious? Or would it just be a huge system of pipes and rolling marbles? If it's not conscious, why not?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
I just killed a bird.........for fun.......... So it better not have rights.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
JCFolsom: I like the idea of such a market-based solution, I really do. At the same time, if I come upon a man torturing a dog, I would feel entirely justified in stopping him, using whatever force was necessary. Frankly, I consider a man that would torture a dog to be worth rather less than the dog, which if treated well would desire naught but to love his master. I rather think most people would agree with me.
For me, it would depend on a couple of factors. Is the dog the man's property, or is the dog the property of another person or a feral dog? Is the man on his private property or on a public right of way?
If the dog belongs to the man and they are on his own private property, as much as I would be repulsed by the man's actions, I would be the aggressor if I intervened. My first aggression would be trespassing on the man's property. My second aggression would be interfering with the man's private property <i.e. the dog.> I would most certainly tell the man off and tell him what a piece of s*** scumbag he is and if possible I would videotape his actions so the rest of the community would also know the same and shun him. However, in a libertarian society that would be the permissible extent of my actions.
If the dog does NOT belong to the man and if the man was located on a public right of way, then it WOULD be permissible for me to intervene if safely possible to end the abuse, although I could not take any action beyond what was required to allow the animal to escape. HOWEVER, even though it would be POSSIBLE to intervene in this situation, it still may not be PRUDENT, in which case I would take the actions described in the first scenario.
In the alternative scenarios where 1. Dog is property of man/public right of way 2. Dog is not property of man/private property: I would respond as in the first scenario above.
Would I like to intervene in the other situations? Yes, of course. However, in a libertarian society such intervention would constitute aggression on my part.
Some of you have asked about the nature of consciousness and whether or not we can be sure that a given animal--or plant--has it. To paraphrase E. F. Schumacher, we could say that we can be sure that animals have consciousness if only because we know that we can knock them unconscious. You cannot knock your mother's rose bush unconscious. A house cat knocked unconscious is not altogether different than that rose bush, as both are possessed of physical materials and life, but neither (at least at the moment) are conscious. They might both serve as peculiar forms of decoration--at least until the cat regains consciousness.
Another way to recognize consciousness is to see if you can get the given entity's attention one way or another.
I highly recommend Schumacher's book A Guide for the Perplexed, and you can find some interesting material regarding "ontological discontinuities" in Chapter 2 and the first several paragraphs in Chapter 3.
Here's a PDF: http://www.mediafire.com/?221cugxlgbz
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
You can make ants go "unconscious" by freezing them, and you can make computers and toy-robots go "unconscious" by leaving them idle. None of that implies self-awareness.
I liked the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on PETA which I think explained this nicely. With rights come responsibilites. If animals in our society today were given rights we would have a bug problem. Animals would be arrested for attacking, murdering etc other animals and humans. They would be arrested for not paying taxes and we would have to have animal courts and animal prisons. Animals are property; period. I love animals, I have 2 cats actually. Just because I dont think they have rights doesn't mean I abuse them. Rights and responsibilites are essential. If animals have rights, then no more meat for us humans to eat because killing animals would be illegal. Animals who attack other animals would have to be put in trial for violations against rights as well. Personaly I think animal rights is an obsured and rediculios concept. I think PETA and animal rights advocates are bored, misguided activists who just need to protest something. Besides most PETA/enviromentalist/animal rights people I see are pretty well off, rich white people who have too much time on their hands and can never form a coherant argument.
[
Aristotle100:With rights come responsibilites
Absolutely. When animals can truly be held responsible for their actions, then they can have rights. Conversely, ownership of animals by humans gives humans rights over them and responsibilities for them. Mistreating an animal you own could be considered irresponsible (depending upon the result of the mistreatment), while mistreating an animal that belongs to someone else is just a violation of the other person's property.
There's just no need to go to the extreme nonsense that PETA advocates.
macsnafu:There's just no need to go to the extreme nonsense that PETA advocates.
And especially not the stuff they actually do, like slaughter animals by the thousands.
http://veritasnoctis.blogspot.com/search?q=PETA
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan PlaucheDoctoral CandidatePolitical ScienceLouisiana State University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
I completely agree with animal rights, now it's time to go out and round up every last preditory animal and try them in court.
My cat's on the phone to a defence attorney right this minute.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
robdailey: JCFolsom: [1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible. [1] No, as it is a logical falacy, you cannot prove a negative - can you prove dogs can't fly? We live by our assumptions, we assume dogs cannot fly, but any amount of empirical evidence that backs this assumption will never prove it to be true.
JCFolsom: [1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.
[1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.
[1] No, as it is a logical falacy, you cannot prove a negative - can you prove dogs can't fly? We live by our assumptions, we assume dogs cannot fly, but any amount of empirical evidence that backs this assumption will never prove it to be true.
Every statement can be expressed as a negative. Some statements are provable. Therefore, some negatives can be proven. The logical fallacy is not when one attempts to prove a negative, but rather, when one uses negative proof (i.e. "X is true because there is no proof that X is false," or, "X is false because there is no proof that X is true.") A lack of proof is not proof. I can, however, prove that my hair is not red, my car is not green and one plus one does not equal five. Even the example you give could easily be expressed as, "Can you prove dogs are land bound?" The fact that neither a dog's ability nor inability to fly can be proven has nothing to do with a logical inability to prove a negative, but rather with a lack of evidence.
robdailey:Animals cannot abide by our social contracts, most importantly the concept of private property. Therefor we must treat them like animals, and likewise they may treat us like animals in return, which of course they do. For us to be able to contract with them we would need to have a way of communicating with them. Until then we must treat them as non rational. I think communication is the main, possibly the only qualifier.
That's a rather large assumption. Again, there is a lack of evidence one way or another regarding animals' abilities to keep our social contracts. A human does not need a contract to expect his rights to remain unviolated - and indeed, a hermit may shun all contact with others. Still, no one else has the right to agress upon him or his property. Further, logically speaking, it is as absurd to assume non-rationality as it is to assume rationality. There is simply no evidence either way.
robdailey:And I think you can most certainly have rights without morality, if you start from a system based on private property, the individual being first soverign in the right to his own body and go from there.
It is by morality that we assert our rights. Non-agression is nothing if not a moral code.
JackCuyler:Some statements are provable.
A tangential point: Deductive matters are provable. Inductive matters are subject to falsification at any time.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke