[VeganTigress]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

I don't know if that's the case. For one, wild animals don't have to spend their whole lives in captivity, deprived of conspecifics or of enough room to turn around.

I completely agree here, wild animals have the ability to preform natural behaviors and have a quality of life greater than life in a industrial farm, lab or fur factory.

Animal in the wild are killed for survival. You do not see hunting for the sake of hunting.

The suffering I focus on is the suffering WE as humans cause to other animals.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Regarding the root canals, we could suppose, for the purpose of the thought experiment, that you have your memory erased after each successive occurrence.

When put in that way, it might indeed seem intuitive to prefer some torture to an arbitrary number of somewhat painful dental operations (I've never been through a root canal so I don't know what it feels like; never been through torture either).

But maybe that intuitiveness is deceptive. Maybe when we represent to ourselves the hypothetical scenario of multiple root canals in succession, with memory erasures in between them, we make the error of still implicitly presupposing a continuity between them that shouldn't be there; maybe as a flaw in our psychology we necessarily make a presupposition such as this.

 

[Alan Dawrst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montyruth

A chicken may well prefer to die in an abattoir rather than being torn apart by a racoon but basically the racoon is being a racoon and I am free to be a human and not kill the chicken. To say that it would die more horribly in nature is a very pointless argument to me.

That's fair. I guess my argument applies more to people who feel an obligation to engage in vegetarian outreach. Why should we try to prevent other people from eating meat? Because doing so will, among other things, prevent chickens from experiencing painful deaths in slaughterhouses. Why should we work toward a society that may one day be able, e.g., to alleviate the suffering of animals when they're eaten in the wild? Because doing so may, over the long run, prevent vast amounts of pain by wild animals.

The details of how to reduce suffering in nature are fuzzy. One speculative way of doing so might be to rewire animal nervous systems such that they're motivated by varying degrees of happiness rather than happiness vs. pain. Needless to say, such a project would require major technological advances that remain a long way off, and may require superintelligence. But we can set the seeds for them now, making sure that alleviating the vast amounts of suffering in nature is indeed a priority for humans of the future.

 

[naitram]

I don't want the animals to suffer. That's the main reason why I went veg. So to me it doesn't matter why they are suffering. And I agree, nature is very cruel. We have an obligation to help these animals as we have an obligation to help anyone at need.

The problem is that nature is too complex for one person to find out how to help wild animals. It is a bit like global warming. Climate is very complex, so you need many scientists dealing with that topic to find out what exactly are the consequences of global warming and what can be done to prevent them.

Today almost nobody cares about the suffering of wild living animals, not even vegans. So we should spread the idea that they also need our help. And when enough people deal with that question we will find out what we can do to reduce their suffering.

 

[Alan Dawrst]

Thanks for the great comments, naitram! I agree with everything you said. Are you interested yourself in encouraging more people (including vegans!) to give thought to wild-animal suffering? I think it's definitely a worthwhile use of time.

 

[amaroque]

The best thing to do is nothing. Strive to live your life in such a way as to minimize your impact on others. There is no need to fix things. Things will fix themselves once we stop making them worse.

 

[adam antichrist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Thanks for the great comments, naitram! I agree with everything you said. Are you interested yourself in encouraging more people (including vegans!) to give thought to wild-animal suffering? I think it's definitely a worthwhile use of time.

hi alan. You seem to be a bit confused about the idea of suffering as being bad. In nature it is a question of a predator causing suffering by feeding on another organism, or suffering itself as it starves. Veganism and environmental protection movements are trying to prevent the suffering of animals caused by humans through our use of them or the destruction/alteration of habitats. But suffering in nature is necessary for it to function. If not, nothing would have evolved. The utilitarian extinction of domestic animals will not result in the extinction of entire species, but the loss of animals from farms. They will continue to exist as ferals in the wild, where they are under the same environmental influences as every plant, animal, fungus etc. Hence there is no problem of animal suffering, as it is natural. The problem is that humans increase the amount of suffering by those billions of chickens and other animals experimented on and killed every year.

 

[Red]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam antichrist

But suffering in nature is necessary for it to function. If not, nothing would have evolved. The utilitarian extinction of domestic animals will not result in the extinction of entire species, but the loss of animals from farms. They will continue to exist as ferals in the wild, where they are under the same environmental influences as every plant, animal, fungus etc. Hence there is no problem of animal suffering, as it is natural.

So if animals are predestined to suffer in 'nature', and suffering is both necessary and good for the health of the species, why does it matter which species is responsible for the suffering?

 

[adam antichrist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

So if animals are predestined to suffer in 'nature', and suffering is both necessary and good for the health of the species, why does it matter which species is responsible for the suffering?

because in nature it occurs as a matter of necessity. Humans do it as a matter of convenience.

 

[Red]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam antichrist

because in nature it occurs as a matter of necessity. Humans do it as a matter of convenience.

So? If an animal is destined to suffer and die, what does the motivation of the animal causing the suffering matter?

And where did you get the idea that all suffering in nature is necessary or is a 1:1 tradeoff, i.e. if one animal has to suffer so another one lives? That's fairytale stuff.

 

[adam antichrist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

So? If an animal is destined to suffer and die, what does the motivation of the animal causing the suffering matter?

And where did you get the idea that all suffering in nature is necessary or is a 1:1 tradeoff, i.e. if one animal has to suffer so another one lives? That's fairytale stuff.

it might be fairytale stuff to people who haven't studied evolution. But pain is what animals experience in order for them to detect injury. This is what allowed animals to grow larger and more complex, without nervous systems there is no way for the extremities in the body to communicate with the brain in a rapid way sufficient to allow the animal to move away and prevent further injury. That is why animals suffer and plants don't. And you'll notice I never described it as a 1:1 trade-off, I described it as selective pressure which leads to evolutionary change we can observe today in morphological aspects such as camouflage, defence mechanisms (armour, venom etc), the ability to climb, run or fly etc; and behavioural characteristics such as burrowing, nocturnal foraging, keeping very still or using habitat to remain cryptic etc. Without being preyed upon, these traits would never have arisen.

Of course emotional suffering is different, but that wasn't what the OP was getting at because it talked about animals eating other animals ie injury and pain. But i suppose if you want to go down the path that since all animals are destined to suffer, the motivation of what causes the suffering is irrelevant; you might as well eat your children. After all, what's it matter?

 

[Red]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam antichrist

it might be fairytale stuff to people who haven't studied evolution.

Interestingly enough I've spent the last 3 days at the annual conference of a professional society I belong to. On Monday I was in a continuing education class covering the current state of using genetics to discern population structure within a fish species. On Tuesday afternoon I sat in on a session on the evolution of diversity in fishes, which had some interesting papers presented on the role of geologic processes and the geographic landscape in speciation, adaptation, and ecological divergence in NA fishes. Yesterday (Wed), I sat in on another session looking at some current research into evolution and adaptations in fishes and invertebrates from a molecular genetics perspective.

As far as I can recall, pain and suffering were never mentioned once.

Quote:

But pain is what animals experience in order for them to detect injury. This is what allowed animals to grow larger and more complex, without nervous systems there is no way for the extremities in the body to communicate with the brain in a rapid way sufficient to allow the animal to move away and prevent further injury. That is why animals suffer and plants don't.

Seems kinda circular - by becoming more complex, animals were then able to become more complex? And as far as growing larger - a simple cantaloupe is larger than most animal species. Your average tree is larger than most of the megafauna. Neither cantaloupes or trees relied on a nervous system to get to that size.

Quote:

And you'll notice I never described it as a 1:1 trade-off,

Oh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam antichrist

In nature it is a question of a predator causing suffering by feeding on another organism, or suffering itself as it starves.

Quite honestly, the whole "suffering has a purpose" thesis sounds more like theology than science.

 

[adam antichrist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Your average tree is larger than most of the megafauna. Neither cantaloupes or trees relied on a nervous system to get to that size.

which is why they do not suffer.

But, since you are so highly educated in the field; perhaps you would like to explain how nervous systems arose in higher animals if it were not under selective pressures?

 

[Red]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam antichrist

which is why they do not suffer.

But, since you are so highly educated in the field; perhaps you would like to explain how nervous systems arose in higher animals if it were not under selective pressures?

You need to move on from the 19th century and catch up. I mean, Darwin was a pretty sharp guy in his day, but there's been quite a bit going on in evolutionary biology since then. In fact, a lot of work in the last decade is indicating that natural selection actually works against complexity, and the more evolved an organism is, the smaller the role natural selection played in getting it there.

For instance:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1103145603.htm

Quote:

The more simple a creature is, the fewer specialized proteins it possesses. Humans and other higher-order mammals need many specialized proteins to build the specialized tissues in their skin, skeleton and organs. Even more specialized proteins are needed to maintain and regulate them. This complexity requires that the duplicates of the original jack-of-all-trades gene be retained, but this does not happen unless selection is inefficient. This is frequently a point of contention between proponents of evolution and intelligent design.

...

"This supports the case for evolution because it shows that you can drive complexity with random mutations in duplicate genes," Fernandez said. "But this also implies that random drift must prevail over Darwinian selection. In other words, if Darwinian selection were ruthlessly efficient in humans -- as it is in bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes -- then our level of complexity would not be possible."

 

[adam antichrist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

You need to move on from the 19th century and catch up. I mean, Darwin was a pretty sharp guy in his day, but there's been quite a bit going on in evolutionary biology since then. In fact, a lot of work in the last decade is indicating that natural selection actually works against complexity, and the more evolved an organism is, the smaller the role natural selection played in getting it there.

For instance:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1103145603.htm

Gee, I can't see anything about cantaloupes there. Would you care to share with us as to how this is relevant to the fact that vertebrates experience pain in response to nociceptor stimulation?

 

[Red]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam antichrist

Gee, I can't see anything about cantaloupes there. Would you care to share with us as to how this is relevant to the fact that vertebrates experience pain in response to nociceptor stimulation?

I thought this was about the 'value' of suffering in terms of Darwinian selection?

If you're simply confused about the mechanics of basic physiological responses, consult a textbook. I bet even wikipedia has a pretty good summation.

 

[adam antichrist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

I thought this was about the 'value' of suffering in terms of Darwinian selection?

If you're simply confused about the mechanics of basic physiological responses, consult a textbook. I bet even wikipedia has a pretty good summation.

I'm quite sure you yourself are confused about it since you earlier questioned why plants didn't evolve central nervous systems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

And as far as growing larger - a simple cantaloupe is larger than most animal species. Your average tree is larger than most of the megafauna. Neither cantaloupes or trees relied on a nervous system to get to that size.

It would take a very long time for a signal to reach the brain if relying on osmosis. I think the fastest a signal can travel by osmosis is about 1m per day? I'm not sure, just what was mentioned in an undergrad physiology lecture years ago. Anyway, for very small or sessile organisms this is fine and since plants were never mobile there is no reason why they would develop a mechanism to allow them to quickly detect damage; however the vascular systems in plants would be too slow for larger animals. Imagine if you stood in a fire and could only become aware of it by the release of chemical signals into the blood, if the heart rate is slow the injury could continue for up to a second before the brain becomes aware. That's much more damage than necessary, so the benefit of a pain signal is that the injury is reduced. Hence the suffering caused by this pain had a value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

And where did you get the idea that all suffering in nature is necessary or is a 1:1 tradeoff, i.e. if one animal has to suffer so another one lives? That's fairytale stuff.

If you are confused about the fact that animals must consume the tissue of other organisms to persist, then you really are in the wrong game. Even species with zooxanthellae in their tissue must consume something. You sidestepped what I said in response to your above comment about evolutionary adaptations of defence such as camouflage, venom etc. I suppose it makes your position of the experience of suffering being completely random or pointless harder to maintain if you address these factors. But as much as we may theorise that they arose to increase survivorship, it can be argued that in part they arose to allow an individual to avoid the experience of pain. Evidence of this comes from Batesian mimicry. I'm sure there may be benign plants or fungi which look similar to toxic ones (even if the similarity can't be detected by human eyes) but this is much less common than in the animal kingdom. If it is only about fitness, we'd expect to see the same levels of mimicry occurring in complex organisms which lack central nervous systems.

As for "one animal has to suffer so another one lives", look up obligate carnivores.

 

[naitram]

Human rights are sometimes devided in generations (wikipedia).

The first generation rights "serve to protect the individual from excesses of the state".

"Secondary rights would include a right to be employed, rights to housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment benefits."

Maybe there will be also generations in animal rights. First rights like the the right to be not encaged, tortured or slaughtered as a reaction to things like factory farming. And then claim rights for those whose suffering is not caused by humans.

 

[chenli]

As far as I'm aware, disease is only prevalent in places where humans have encroached upon. Injury is inevitable and accidental. Disease is less likely to occur unless there's an open wound or hot spots for bacteria.....given the circle of life and all that, any disease that does occur in the wild that isn't due to humans going into said wild place is natures way of keeping numbers down. And what 'brutal slaughter'? Carnivores/Omnivores gotta eat and many go for a quick kill because a struggling animal has potential to injure the predator. Unless you mean humans hunting wild animals.

 

[Annia]

I care (and want to stop) the suffering that wild animals have due to human actions. (For example: destruction of wildlife, hunting as a sport, climate change etc.)

Wild animals have to kill other animals to survive. I don't want to stop that.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest trying to "control" suffering in wild animals. It's the most absurd idea I've ever heard. Suffering caused by humans: yes we can, and should, eliminate that but "suffering" caused just by the animals existing is completely mental. If that's the case we should kill all disabled people or people in LEDCs because they're suffering too so surely it's better for them not to exist. Actually we should kill everyone on the planet because I'm certain that every single human has suffered, or will suffer, at some point in their life. (Not just talking about physical suffering here, also emotional suffering.)