Poll: Is this question we have to face in future or NOT ?

Yes, we have to face this but now it’s not a priorty



Interspecies confusion

Total Posts:  1
Joined  19-02-2017
19 February 2017 07:06

I am confused with the topic of ‘what should be the behaviour of Human species towards others species’. If i want to analysis this by evolution - its all looks like continuum of species from bacteria to plants and animals including human beings itself. I am a human being so i should protect and help to grow my species. But what concern me after that is our behaviour towards others species. If we hold a logic on feelings of pains (physically and mentally) by other species. Then we have put our logic on neuroscience and upcoming research shown that even lower order species like plants and cockroach can have some neuro-feedback loops , so they can feels pain etc.
Now we just trapped,we can’t do photosynthesis so we have to kill some species for our food-need and protection.
  If the arguments come into play just on methods of killing and eating, like stun and block their pain feelings loops and then we can kill them.Then i can’t differentiate between stunning and killing a chicken or a man or a monkey etc. Now on behalf of evolution we can’t draw a line killings of which species is bad or good.We can exclude the human species by the argument of Intra-species. But is a killing of a monkey/chimpanzee is as valid as a killing of chicken or a killing of bacteria ?

I think i have explained the argument and confusion clearly. Maybe i am lacking with more knowledge on this topic. So i will welcome all the comments and suggestions on this.

Total Posts:  19
Joined  21-08-2017
21 August 2017 15:39

I think common sense actually helps here, best not to discard it, we are emotional beings, so emotional well-being is important for us, and we are advanced enough to have empathy, which expands first to our fellow humans (usually) and or our immediate loved ones (sometimes, this is a pet), and then life forms we are less and less familiar or fond of. Also, the more advanced the emotional-system of a life-form, the greater the possible suffering of that life form. For example, apes, which includes humans, can feel suffering and loss when they lose a family member or loved one; so even if you could ‘nullify’ the pain for killing that loved one, you still cause reverberating suffering throughout the family or community, therefore it’s no good. What drives us to be civil, when we can afford to be, is we are looking out for own asses, if we start killing a bunch of cute cuddly teddy bears, who is to say the mob won’t come for our children next? So, if we can afford to be civil, humanity tends to strive to not kill cute things that look like us or make us feel good or even just shares some human trait - like pain receptors, because we don’t want to live in a world where things that look cute or make us feel good suffer or don’t get a chance to be happy, because that puts us closer and closer to ‘unhappy world to live in’.

As for what is a humane food source, it’s irrelevant to my mind, eventually we will engineer our food to be superior to anything nature provides, it’s just a matter of time. The amount of time that we will have to remain part of the food-chain cycle (even though we are at the top) is relatively limited. And more importantly I think it’s sensible in the short term if those are the riches food sources available to us for now, since life-forms best chance of proliferating beyond earth and its constrained time period and beyond unforeseen global catastrophe is relying on currently evolving intelligent lifeforms and sustaining them in the hopes they stop just carrying seeds in their poop to the next island, but all the way to the next planet - these intelligent creatures typically require rich nutrient sources like animal food or sheer abundance of ripe fruit to evolve big brains.

[ Edited: 21 August 2017 15:43 by lukefrmal]
Total Posts:  76
Joined  09-08-2017
25 November 2017 10:27

Thank you for helping me to clarify some of my own thinking on this topic, especially the overall conclusion that earths particular type of life form contribution to the universe will ultimately depend on its most intelligent form for its survival as our star implodes and then explodes or some other more immediate catastrophe shows up. My own tendency is to be sentimental towards other (wild?) species. This, I know, is frivolous as I live in an area that has been cleared of species that would view humans as prey. My sentimentality would vanish if I lived in rural India and saw a Bengal tiger walk across the front yard. That said, I also know intellectually that respect for all life that has evolved from the same process that I did is somehow critical to the advancement of my own species. I do not want to fall prey to another species, or my own for that matter, and at the same time do not wish to infringe on the right to life of any other life form unless absolutely “necessary”. I am totally in favor of setting aside huge tracts of land for the benefit of other species. Human activity, including my own, will always infringe on anything even vaguely considered “wild”. At this point in time I don’t envision any way around this.