Why is a puppy more important and valuable than an ant?

[Richard Masters]

I was thinking about Obama's encounter with a fly and PETA's criticism.

Why do we value one type of animal more than another? I think the simple answer is that the more an animal interacts with the world, and in particular with us humans, the more we value it.

Flies do interact with the world, but their interaction is restricted to buzzing around our food. Puppy dogs, on the other hand remember us and evoke positive emotions.

So for humans to value an entity it must:

1. Interact with the world.
2. Internalize the world and its own experiences.
3. Evoke emotions or participate socially.

The more of each it does, the more we value its existence. The more it evokes positive emotions, the less we want to kill it.

Just a rough theory. Any thoughts, ideas, or criticism?

[Piscivore]

"Import" and "Value" are entirely subjective.

[Richard Masters]

"Import" and "Value" are entirely subjective.

But don't people, in general, value the life of a puppy dog more than an ant's?

[Piscivore]

Further:
So for humans to value an entity it must:

1. Interact with the world.
2. Internalize the world and its own experiences.
3. Evoke emotions or participate socially.

The more of each it does, the more we value its existence. The more it evokes positive emotions, the less we want to kill it.

Just a rough theory. Any thoughts, ideas, or criticism?

Of what species are the members of PETA? Your opening sentence contains the refutation of your hypothesis- humans do not all "value" alike, so trying to draft guidelines to explain why "we" value anything is incorrect from the first premise.

As for point one, specifically- all things in "the world" interact with "the world". I think what you meant there is "interact with humans"

As for point two, specifically- we cannot even be sure that all humans do this, let alone dogs.

If you want to say that most humans will prefer animals that interact with humans, evoke pleasant emotions, and/or participate socially, that's closer, but even than- some people collect and enjoy scorpions and spiders.

But don't people, in general, value the life of a puppy dog more than an ant's?

Some people eat dogs and ignore ants.

ETA: Piscivore's maxim: Never, never, never form a hypothesis to explain large group behaviour around what one thinks is true "in general".

[Marquis de Carabas]

Generally speaking, the more like us something appears and/or acts, the more we like it.

[Piscivore]

Generally speaking, the more like us something appears and/or acts, the more we like it.

You've never met my ex sister-in-law.

[Phrenolo]

I think the answer can be reduced to the emotional response humans experience with regards to faces. A large portion of our brain is used for facial recognition. We empathize with cute faces. This empathy is why the puppy wins.

[Richard Masters]

Further:


Of what species are the members of PETA? Your opening sentence contains the refutation of your hypothesis- humans do not all "value" alike, so trying to draft guidelines to explain why "we" value anything is incorrect from the first premise.

As for point one, specifically- all things in "the world" interact with "the world". I think what you meant there is "interact with humans"


No, I think that the more complex its interaction with the world, the more we value an entity. Social behaviors are simply more visible to humans, so animals that interact with humans come to mind first.

As for point two, specifically- we cannot even be sure that all humans do this, let alone dogs.

Anything that learns internalizes the world. We know humans and dogs can do this from conditioning and habituation to new environments, new people and new objects.

If you want to say that most humans will prefer animals that interact with humans, evoke pleasant emotions, and/or participate socially, that's closer, but even than- some people collect and enjoy scorpions and spiders.

I'd like to include a broad range of organisms and entities into the theory. For example, Artificial intelligence, works of art, historical buildings.

Some people eat dogs and ignore ants.

From what I've read, those dogs are usually not raised as pets, which means that they have not been given a chance to participate socially.

[Richard Masters]

Some people eat dogs and ignore ants.

ETA: Piscivore's maxim: Never, never, never form a hypothesis to explain large group behaviour around what one thinks is true "in general".

I was familiar with dog-eating practices before I started this thread.

[Richard Masters]

Generally speaking, the more like us something appears and/or acts, the more we like it.

Agreed, except for the Uncanny Valley Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley)

I think the answer can be reduced to the emotional response humans experience with regards to faces. A large portion of our brain is used for facial recognition. We empathize with cute faces. This empathy is why the puppy wins.

Cuteness, empathy and a sense of belonging (extension of self)?

[Piscivore]

No, I think that the more complex its interaction with the world, the more we value an entity.
Silkworms have a level of complexity of interaction with the world on par with flies, and they have been valued extremely highly. Same with crickets in Ancient China.

Anything that learns internalizes the world.
Evidence?

We know humans and dogs can do this from conditioning and habituation to new environments, new people and new objects.
It is conceivable that it doesn't. Hitting a dog with a stick when it gets near a gate until it does not go near the gate anymore does not prove that the dog thinks "gate bad".

We don't have any conclusive evidence either way that I am aware of.

I'd like to include a broad range of organisms and entities into the theory. For example, Artificial intelligence, works of art, historical buildings.
All the subjective judgements made about these things are going to be influenced heavily on an individual basis by the judger's genetic predispositions, learned culture, education, life experience, and countless other factors- all of which, since none of the factors are isolated from any other factor, are going to be unique to that individual.

And how exactly do art and architecture "interact socially"?

From what I've read, those dogs are usually not raised as pets, which means that they have not been given a chance to participate socially.
Subjectivity in action. The pets are being "given a chance to participate socially" and the livestock are not by subjective human choice. Some humans value the animal's nutritional content, some humans value their companionship. How they treat the animals is based on that value judgement. It is not the cause of the judgement.

[six7s]

Flies do interact with the world, but their interaction is restricted to buzzing around our food. Puppy dogs, on the other hand remember us and evoke positive emotions.Flies also provide food for the local ecosystem; e.g. spiders, frogs and carniverous plants...

However, they're prolific breeders - so the wanton killing of one or even a million of the 'pests' ain't gonna lead to a collapse of LAWKI, Jim

[Richard Masters]

Silkworms have a level of complexity of interaction with the world on par with flies, and they have been valued extremely highly. Same with crickets in Ancient China.

Their byproducts (silk) are another level of interaction/influence which flies do not possess.


Hitting a dog with a stick when it gets near a gate until it does not go near the gate anymore does not prove that the dog thinks "gate bad".

This is why I used the word internalize, instead of think. Regardless of whether there is "thought" involved, some form of imprint of the world is made in the dog.

All the subjective judgements made about these things are going to be influenced heavily on an individual basis by the judger's genetic predispositions, learned culture, education, life experience, and countless other factors- all of which, since none of the factors are isolated from any other factor, are going to be unique to that individual.

And how exactly do art and architecture "interact socially"?

Poor wording on my part. Art and architecture, however, do have an impressionable effect on society.

Subjectivity in action. The pets are being "given a chance to participate socially" and the livestock are not by subjective human choice. Some humans value the animal's nutritional content, some humans value their companionship. How they treat the animals is based on that value judgement. It is not the cause of the judgement.

You are right. Maybe the hypothesis should be interpreted as normative. For example, "Why should a puppy be considered more important than an ant"?

[Richard Masters]

Flies also provide food for the local ecosystem; e.g. spiders, frogs and carniverous plants...

However, they're prolific breeders - so the wanton killing of one or even a million of the 'pests' ain't gonna lead to a collapse of LAWKI, Jim

True. Still, it makes me wonder whether we'd regard flies more highly if they could express emotions. I think the answer is yes.

I suppose, too, flies aren't likely emotionally attached to a person, and neither is the reverse true, so killing one won't make a difference there either.

[Metullus]

I was going to answer that puppies are more filling, but I thought better of it...

[Eyeron]

Cuteness factor often plays into it. A puppy is often cuter than an ant, an ant scares people.

[Third Eye Open]

We have mammal brains that identify easier with other mammals than insects. I'm sure you also feel more empathy towards a puppy than say, a frog or lizard, but even more empathy toward a baby chimpanzee than a puppy.

I think it has a lot to do with how closely related we are.

[six7s]

Flies also provide food for the local ecosystem; e.g. spiders, frogs and carniverous plants...

However, they're prolific breeders - so the wanton killing of one or even a million of the 'pests' ain't gonna lead to a collapse of LAWKI, JimTrue. Still, it makes me wonder whether we'd regard flies more highly if they could express emotions. I think the answer is yes.To express emotions, they'd need a large brain... I think it's highly improbable (going by all other life forms on this planet) that they'd be prolific breeders

Turtles are an example of a species with both a somewhat 'developed' brain and a high brood count; they might hatch 100s (1000s?) of eggs - but very, very few survive more than a few weeks (i.e. they are eaten loooong before they can reproduce)

To mitigate the risk of pointlessly anthropomorphising this issue, consider the lilies plants: We value mature trees much more highly than the gazillions of seedlings they produce annually

Why?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I was thinking about Obama's encounter with a fly and PETA's criticism.

Why do we value one type of animal more than another? I think the simple answer is that the more an animal interacts with the world, and in particular with us humans, the more we value it.

Flies do interact with the world, but their interaction is restricted to buzzing around our food. Puppy dogs, on the other hand remember us and evoke positive emotions.

So for humans to value an entity it must:

1. Interact with the world.
2. Internalize the world and its own experiences.
3. Evoke emotions or participate socially.

The more of each it does, the more we value its existence. The more it evokes positive emotions, the less we want to kill it.

Just a rough theory. Any thoughts, ideas, or criticism?

No. Interaction with the world has nothing got to do with it. Do you think you would empathize more with a cockroach if it interacted more with the world? (And roaches interact a LOT with the world). We tend to see a greater average of cockroaches, flies and spiders in our daily lives than Panda Bears or tiger cubs, yet it only takes getting an occasional glimpse one of the latter to immediately fall into an "aww".

It has to do, as it has been pointed out, with how close a species is to us and with face recognition, and face aesthetics (Clearly, we do not find chimpanzees necessarily cute, but we certainly emphasize with them enough to never kill them with the same indifference we would kill a roach). The closer an animal is to our species, the closer we tend to feel to them. So you can evidently see that, in general lines, the empathy level would tend to gradually decrease in a list such as the following:

-Puppy dogs
-Dolphins
-Lizards
-Spiders
-Worms

This is why you have so-claimed "vegetarians" who decide to make an exception when eating fish. To them eating a cow is unacceptable but they can make the occasional exception when eating fish or shrimp. They look a lot less like us, therefore we feel less close to them. If we feel more distanced, then we are less likely to emphasize. If we're less likely to emphasize, we're more likely to act in a way that's indifferent to their pain. That's how it seems to work with us, humans.

[a3sigma]

I suggest it has to with individuation. Seen one ant, or one flounder, you've pretty well seen them all. It's difficult to value them as individuals, if you can't tell one from another.

DC

[six7s]

It has to do, as it has been pointed out, with how close a species is to us and with face recognition, and face aestheticsReally?

I think not

Sure... cuteness kicks in at a superficial level

But deep down, I think decisions are based simply on 'supply and demand'

In a war, we kill our neighbours (who look a hell of a lot like we do) when supply exceeds demand

In 'peace time' we (all too often?) sanction property developers killing acres of grass to build a shopping mall...

When was the last time that Greenpeace mounted a 'save the sparrow' campaign?

[SonOfLaertes]

Ants and flies are pests. They breed prolifically, in fact their survival scheme is based on producing swarms of offspring, most of which are not expected to make it to maturity. Cuteness, interaction, mammalian identification - all play a part, but I think the fact that there are whole industries tasked with the job of killing off as many flies and ants as possible tells you all you really need to know.

[six7s]

...there are whole industries tasked with the job of killing off as many flies and ants as possible...
Yeah... and Mao Ze Dong launched the 'Four Harms/Pests Eradication programme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_sparrow_campaign)'... and that was just oh so successful :rolleyes:

LSlK5YTI3XY
I Know An Old Lady Who Swallowed A Horse

[a3sigma]

In a war, we kill our neighbours (who look a hell of a lot like we do) when supply exceeds demand




Individuation again. First step in legitimating killing our neighbors is to depersonalize them. You know, those damn [fill in the blank] are all alike.

DC

[six7s]

Individuation again. First step in legitimating killing our neighbors is to depersonalize them. You know, those damn [fill in the blank] are all alike.Yeah... of course! Silly me! I shoulda remembered that, during peace time, they're all individuals; each and every single damn one of them Johnny Forriners is cherished in out hearts and prayers

:rolleyes:

[a3sigma]

Yeah... of course! Silly me! I shoulda remembered that, during peace time, they're all individuals; each and every single damn one of them Johnny Forriners is cherished in out hearts and prayers

:rolleyes:

I fail to see the occasion for sarcasm or hyperbole. Racism, nationalism, every form of tribalism has to do with putting people into categories. And, war or peace, these are pretty universal phenomena.

We cherish a life in so far as we recognize it as unique. We feel the loss of what we regard as irreplaceable. Humans also have the capacity for empathy: "the power of entering into another’s personality and imaginatively experiencing his feelings". That is recognizing another person to be as unique, and valuable, as we consider ourselves -- individual.

DC

[six7s]

I fail to see the occasion for sarcasm or hyperbole. Racism, nationalism, every form of tribalism has to do with putting people into categories. And, war or peace, these are pretty universal phenomena.Yep

And it's this 'universality' that nullifys your argument

We cherish a life in so far as we recognize it as unique. We feel the loss of what we regard as irreplaceable.So... you're busy grieving for all those kids that you hitherto cherished who have drowned in the last 2 minutes, right?

[a3sigma]

Yep

And it's this 'universality' that nullifys your argument

So... you're busy grieving for all those kids that you hitherto cherished who have drowned in the last 2 minutes, right?



Huh? Could you please just drop the sarcasm and simply state whatever it is you're trying express?

DC

[Towlie]

I did a thread on this same subject six months ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145961

[six7s]

Huh? Could you please just drop the sarcasm and simply state whatever it is you're trying express?

DCHuh?

Flies also provide food for the local ecosystem; e.g. spiders, frogs and carniverous plants...

However, they're prolific breeders - so the wanton killing of one or even a million of the 'pests' ain't gonna lead to a collapse of LAWKI, Jim

To mitigate the risk of pointlessly anthropomorphising this issue, consider the lilies plants: We value mature trees much more highly than the gazillions of seedlings they produce annually

Why?
I had thought that, other than LAWKI, everything I've 'expressed' on this thread has been exceedingly straightforward...

Which bits are confusing?

[Darth Rotor]

An ant cannot bark and wake you up when somebody is trying to steal your stuff. A dog can.

[a3sigma]

Huh?




I had thought that, other than LAWKI, everything I've 'expressed' on this thread has been exceedingly straightforward...

Which bits are confusing?

OK

How does the universality of tribalism negate anything I've contended? My contention is that we value life we identify and empathize with. Tribalism is a failure to identify and empathize -- the categorizing as "other". There's a lot of it around -- there's a lot of killing around. How do you account for it? Surplus population? Did we nuke Nagasaki because we feared overcrowding there?

The bit about drowning kids just completely eludes me. I can't make enough sense of it to ask a sensible question. I'm going to sleep now -- will check back in the morning. Maybe I'll figure it out by then.

I figured out what LAWKI stands for.

DC

[plumjam]

Via natural selection enforced by human shoes, ants will, over millions of years, evolve to have faces like Shih-tzu puppies, and then we won't need to worry.

[a3sigma]

Yep

And it's this 'universality' that nullifys your argument

So... you're busy grieving for all those kids that you hitherto cherished who have drowned in the last 2 minutes, right?



I'm awake now. Good morning.

Yes, I do regret needless human death and suffering. The daily news of people dying of want distresses me. Setting out ant poison does not. I grieve for people more or less in proportion to how well I knew them as individuals. I find it impossible to think of an ant as an individual.

No ant's death diminishes me, for I am not involved in ant-kind. And, therefore, do not send to know for whom the tiny little ant bells toll -- I can't hear them, and don't give a crap anyway. [with sincere apologies to John Doone]

And I find I have little or no rational control over such feelings as grief and empathy. Which leads to my conjecture that they are to some extent hard wired and dependent on the ability to distinguish individuals.

DC

[Cayvmann]

Ants and flies are pests. They breed prolifically, in fact their survival scheme is based on producing swarms of offspring, most of which are not expected to make it to maturity.

I was thinking along the lines that it might have something to do with availability. A kind of supply and demand thing. Puppies are rarer than ants or flies, and animals that don't try to eat us are rare also, so they win on both counts.

The rarer the creature, it seems from watching too much Animal Planet, the more we tend to value them, or be fascinated. Ants, cockroaches, and other bugs are too plentiful.

What I really think though, is that they are cute and put up with our crap.

[HansMustermann]

Why do we value one type of animal more than another?

Taste. If you barbecued an ant, you'd hardly get any eating out of it, but a puppy... mmm... What, you're saying that's just me? ;)

[a3sigma]

Taste. If you barbecued an ant, you'd hardly get any eating out of it, but a puppy... mmm... What, you're saying that's just me? ;)

OK, it's story time. Sorry. Please ignore if inappropriate:

Many years ago, serving in the U.S. Navy, stationed in the Philippines, I adopted a German Shepard puppy. Don't remember where it came from. Within a few days, it was struck and killed by a German merchant seaman, driving a Volkswagen. Figure the odds.

That evening, the housemaid served supper: a delicious dish of little pieces of barbecued meat on rice. As I chewed the meat off a tiny leg bone, I realized what it was. The maid, sheepishly, confirmed my surmise. "What the hell," I thought, and thoroughly enjoyed the meal. I don't know whether I would have, had I know the puppy longer, but I suspect so. I don't believe in ghosts, K9 or other kinds.

I was sopping up the the BBQ sauce when came a knock at the door. It was the German seaman. He was terribly distraught, and apologetic -- expressing a willingness to make amends. Dollar signs gleaming in my guileless eyes, (ka-ching) I launched into an egregious lie about how I had imported this champion pure-bred Shepard from Germany at great expense. He was to be the founding stud of a line I was going to raise and sell as guard dogs. Now my business plan was in ruins, and my capital exhausted. Soaked the seaman for a hundred bucks, and returned to the dinner table.

My only regret is that I didn't invite him to join me -- but that might have been a little risky.

DC

[quarky]

Its about tits.

Animals with tits are special.

[I Ratant]

An ant cannot bark and wake you up when somebody is trying to steal your stuff. A dog can.
.
Yeah!
Never saw an ant run home barking to tell Ma and Ellen that Timmy had fallen in the well. Again!

[I Ratant]

Via natural selection enforced by human shoes, ants will, over millions of years, evolve to have faces like Shih-tzu puppies, and then we won't need to worry.
.
Few of us spend a significant portion of our lives staring ants in the face, to get to notice much of them at all, much less their resemblance to puppies.

[Soapy Sam]

Did you ever throw a frisbee for an ant?
What happened?

I rest my case.

[James in New York]

Humans might believe it, but a puppy isn't more valuable than an ant to Nature.
And neither are we...

[patchbunny]

When I awaken to find a few thousand puppies in my kitchen rampaging through my pantry, I'll think less of them. For now, puppies are so darn cute!!! :D

[James in New York]

I have yet to see a puppy aerate the soil. ;)

But they are known to soil the carpet...

[KingMerv00]

Humans might believe it, but a puppy isn't more valuable than an ant to Nature.
And neither are we...

"Value" is entirely a product of human thought. I am human thus I get to choose what is valuable and what isn't. Nature doesn't have that right.

**** you, nature. I want puppies.

[Piscivore]

Burying one's enemies up to the neck next to an anthill: Awesome.
Burying one's enemies up to the neck next to a box of puppies: Not As Awesome.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Burying one's enemies up to the neck next to a box of puppies: Not As Awesome.
It is if you starve the puppies.

[James in New York]

**** you, nature. I want puppies.

:)

[aviolet4u]

I generally don't want to and hate killing insects, never do when they are outside. But when there are dozens of them around any sweets in my kitchen well...

If Buddhists are right, karma is going to be a bitch lol. I'm going to come back as an ant in my next life.

[quarky]

Why not use the mass of a creature as a measuring tool of justice?
A puppy is worth millions of ants.
A whale is worth dozens of humans

and so forth

[Ron_Tomkins]

Really?

I think not

Sure... cuteness kicks in at a superficial level

But deep down, I think decisions are based simply on 'supply and demand'

In a war, we kill our neighbours (who look a hell of a lot like we do) when supply exceeds demand

In 'peace time' we (all too often?) sanction property developers killing acres of grass to build a shopping mall...

When was the last time that Greenpeace mounted a 'save the sparrow' campaign?

You think that empathy for a creature has to do with "Supply and demand"? I'm sorry, Six7s, but as much as I respect and value your opinions, I need to ask you to elaborate a bit more. What exactly do you mean by that?.

And the example with war doesn't seem to correlate. In war, people are trained under a political and social ideology that justifies killing. They are educated to kill. But outside of the Infantry, you don't see civilians killing other civilians (with the exception of the mentally ill). In fact, even within war we've heard of the occasional soldier who, after killing someone, still can't get over the fact that he has killed another human being. It takes a certain type of metalization to do that. It still doesn't change the fact that we emphasize with our own species more than we do with a worm. We wouldn't kill a human with the same ease we kill a worm. We wouldn't kill a squirrel with the same ease we would kill a worm. There clearly is a genetic based type of empathy.

[MattusMaximus]

The answer to the question in the thread title is simple:

Because I can make a full, satisfactory meal out of a puppy, and a single ant just isn't filling at all.

:D

[athon]

When I awaken to find a few thousand puppies in my kitchen rampaging through my pantry, I'll think less of them. For now, puppies are so darn cute!!! :D

This is part of the answer. :)

Humans have brains that are geared to work well in a social group. Puppies are closer to humans than ants in terms of physical features and behaviour, making it easier to sympathise with them. By virtue of how we socialise, puppies are comparitively cuter than ants, making it harder to do harm against them.

Athon

[quarky]

At some point along this continuum, we encounter organisms too small to see. We crush millions of them without forethought or malice. We have up to 3 pounds of these aliens living on and in our bodies.

[James in New York]

the answer to the question in the thread title is simple:

Because i can make a full, satisfactory meal out of a puppy, and a single ant just isn't filling at all.

:d

:) lol

[Darth Rotor]

Humans might believe it, but a puppy isn't more valuable than an ant to Nature.
Really? You can read "Nature's" mind and assure us of this?

On one basis I'll mildly disagree, the basis being law of supply and demand. Value of an ant is lower. Since there are fewer puppies, the odds are that per unit, puppy has higher value ... unless you are another ant, in which case puppy is a dangerous monster.
And neither are we...
Speak for yourself.

Note: We see what you did there, anthropomorphing nature like that. ;) Attributing to nature assignments of "value" to any critter, without that step, is nonsense. Since the step is nonsense ... follow the bouncing ball.

DR

[aviolet4u]

At some point along this continuum, we encounter organisms too small to see. We crush millions of them without forethought or malice. We have up to 3 pounds of these aliens living on and in our bodies.

I hope one of them isn't going to burst through my chest :eek:

[I Ratant]

Biomass wise, there's more ants than puppies.
Walking out back in the summer, I can see thousands of ants and not a single puppy on any given day.
But when the ants get inside here, out comes the 409, and they go away.
Over the years, the invaders have gotten smaller also. The ones I see in the house are much smaller than the ants that nest outside in the desert.

[James in New York]

Really? You can read "Nature's" mind and assure us of this?

Absolutely. :)

Nature is amoral.

[Darth Rotor]

Absolutely. :)
Please apply for the million.
Nature is amoral.
Nice non sequitur, given the thought being "value" and "valuable" in the opening question.

Care to explain what amoral has to do with that? Lookin' for some E in the JREF here ...

DR

[shawmutt]

It isn't.

...squish.

[James in New York]

Please apply for the million.

LOL

[ZeeZero]

People draw arbitrary lines in the sand.

I'm a sizist.

Technically, I kill tons of life every time I sit down or wipe my nose. If you can't see them they don't count.
Ants, well, you can hardly see them, so they don't count so much either.

I'm more comfortable with killing midgets than I am with giants, etc, etc....

Really, I think questions like this are rediculous.

[Hux]

We are evolved to appreciate the baby like faces of animals this makes us more likely to bond with our own offspring.

As far as we can tell, ants don't look any different when they are little nippers.

We have historically acted morally different towards insects than primates. The former, it seems, display little propensity for suffering and pain- or so we have satisfied ourselves with.

Ants are notoriously difficult to house train so we are bound to be wary of them. In addition, they turn up at all hours with their friends.

[six7s]

You think that empathy for a creature has to do with "Supply and demand"? I'm sorry, Six7s, but as much as I respect and value your opinions, I need to ask you to elaborate a bit more. What exactly do you mean by that?.

And the example with war doesn't seem to correlate. In war, people are trained under a political and social ideology that justifies killing. They are educated to kill. But outside of the Infantry, you don't see civilians killing other civilians (with the exception of the mentally ill). Ermm... yes, you do...

Consider the lilies deaths on our roads...

We are NOT educated - at least not as part of driving lessons - to kill our neighbours with our cars... yet we do. Why?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ermm... yes, you do...

Consider the lilies deaths on our roads...

We are NOT educated - at least not as part of driving lessons - to kill our neighbours with our cars... yet we do. Why?

You're beginning to disappoint me.

I believe you understand what I meant when I said "You don't see civilians killing other civilians" and even took the effort to clarify between brackets "With the exception of the mentally ill"; or did you not? Otherwise I can't fathom why you would have said something as obtuse as that.

Car accidents do not count, unless we're once again dealing with the mentally ill, who will eventually try to purposely run another human over with his car. Again, the exception.

Do you see normal human beings intentionally running over pedestrians with their cars?

[six7s]

Do you see normal human beings intentionally running over pedestrians with their cars?No... and I didn't suggest anything of the sort

Rather, I'm pointing out that - although we may overtly place an exceedingly high value on human life - we're actually prepared to accept the risks; the probability of killing our neighbours AND/OR ourselves whilst getting from A to B quickly is 'acceptably low'

[RandFan]

Burying one's enemies up to the neck next to a box of puppies: Not As Awesome. Up to your neck in... awsome.

http://vimeo.com/6536446

Ya gotta see it to believe it.

[GlennB]

Angling might be an interesting illustration.

In the UK a lot of anglers like to fish for pike ('Northern pike' in the USA, I believe).
They'll take specialist landing nets, semi-inflated mats to rest their catch on, use minimalist hooks and have a veritable operating theatre's worth of instruments to unhook the fish. Then they'll nurse the fish carefully back in the water to rest and revive it after the ordeal.

But they might well have caught the beast on a small living fish impaled on those very hooks, yet see no contradiction.

I'll add here that I was a keen pike angler (lures and deadbaits) so this is not a criticism of angling as such. Maggot schmaggot.

[six7s]

If fish could scream...
























Angling would be so much more fun







:duck:

[Cavemonster]

People draw arbitrary lines in the sand.

I'm a sizist.

Technically, I kill tons of life every time I sit down or wipe my nose. If you can't see them they don't count.
Ants, well, you can hardly see them, so they don't count so much either.

I'm more comfortable with killing midgets than I am with giants, etc, etc....

Really, I think questions like this are rediculous.

Really? You'd be more comfortable killing a tiny human baby than, a hippo? I'd be surprised if that were the case.

[Ron_Tomkins]

No... and I didn't suggest anything of the sort

Then please explain this:

We are NOT educated - at least not as part of driving lessons - to kill our neighbours with our cars... yet we do. Why?

Who is "we"? Because I don't go around killing people with my car. Neither does my father, mother, brother, sister, friends or anyone that I know. When I go out on the street, I don't usually see people carelessly driving their cars over other people. I don't read that in the news every day. Other than the occasional "whacko" that we see on the papers every one and then, driving his car towards civilians, it is not a common behavior of human beings to drive their cars against other people. So who is this "we"? Because it does sound as if you're claiming that in general lines, all of us go around killing people with our cars. So please clarify what you meant in that sentence.

Rather, I'm pointing out that - although we may overtly place an exceedingly high value on human life - we're actually prepared to accept the risks; the probability of killing our neighbours AND/OR ourselves whilst getting from A to B quickly is 'acceptably low'

I'm not talking about wether or not we place an exceedingly value on human life. Beyond that, I'm talking about empathy and indifference. I can kill an ant with complete indifference and I won't be thinking about it the next second nor the next minute nor the next hour. I won't be sweating and thinking "Oh God, what did I do? I killed that poor ant". The same is not true if I did that to a rabbit. And it would be increasingly more difficult (meaning, more second thoughts of guilt and pain) with: a dog, a horse, and ultimately a human being. It would take an amazingly over the top circumstance for me to actually kill a human being, and I'm pretty sure I would still be regretting it afterwards. It is clear that the amount of indifference does not compare to that of other creatures, and that the less close they are to our species, the easiest it is to kill them.

Again, when you say we're actually prepared to accept the risks; the probability of killing our neighbours" I sincerely have to ask you "who is this we"? Because that certainly does not apply to me and I challenge you to run the poll here or anywhere. Do you honestly believe that we, humans, in general are prepared to deal with the risks and after thoughts of killing our neighbors? Is that the true concept you have of mankind? I mean, this is so over the top in insanity that I don't even know what else to say other than: Seriously??? If it was someone else, I would be betting that you are officially trolling. But I've seen your posting and they are generally very lucid and coherent, so I am by now astonished at what you're claiming.

[RandFan]

I'm not talking about wether or not we place an exceedingly value on human life. Beyond that, I'm talking about empathy and indifference. I can kill an ant with complete indifference and I won't be thinking about it the next second nor the next minute nor the next hour. I won't be sweating and thinking "Oh God, what did I do? I killed that poor ant". The same is not true if I did that to a rabbit. And it would be increasingly more difficult (meaning, more second thoughts of guilt and pain) with: a dog, a horse, and ultimately a human being. It would take an amazingly over the top circumstance for me to actually kill a human being, and I'm pretty sure I would still be regretting it afterwards. It is clear that the amount of indifference does not compare to that of other creatures, and that the less close they are to our species, the easiest it is to kill them.Good post.

BTW: Keep in mind that we risk our own lives equally by driving on the roads.

[six7s]

Who is "we"? Because I don't go around killing people with my car. Neither does my father, mother, brother, sister, friends or anyone that I know. I'm using 'we' in the widest sense - all of us, collectively...

When I go out on the street, I don't usually see people carelessly driving their cars over other people. I don't read that in the news every day.That's cos car related deaths is old news...

I have a hunch you've been (erroneously) inferring the word 'intentional' (and/or 'premeditated'', 'conscious' etc) when you've read my posts about we humans killing each other with cars


Other than the occasional "whacko" that we see on the papers every one and then, driving his car towards civilians, it is not a common behavior of human beings to drive their cars against other people.Intentionally, no

However... we do live in a world where we (at least subconsciously) know that today, tomorrow and every other day in the forseeable future, humans WILL be killed, by us, driving cars on journeys that we don't NEED to make

I won't be sweating and thinking "Oh God, what did I do? I killed that poor ant". The same is not true if I did that to a rabbit.I have a hunch that your home doesn't overlook where the buffalo roam... and your larder is stocked from a supermarket

And it would be increasingly more difficult (meaning, more second thoughts of guilt and pain) with: a dog, a horse, and ultimately a human being. It would take an amazingly over the top circumstance for me to actually kill a human being, and I'm pretty sure I would still be regretting it afterwards.Afterwards? For sure... you and me both...

However, when I drove my car on a 2km journey this morning - I trip I should have made on my bicycle - I was wilfully, blissfully ignoring the distinct possibility that I could kill someone

Do you honestly believe that we, humans, in general are prepared to deal with the risks and after thoughts of killing our neighbors?The evidence suggests so

Why pretend otherwise?

[quarky]

I'd go so far as to say that killing our neighbors is what humans are uniquely qualified to do.

Without our innate willingness to kill our own kind, we'd be in a crap load of trouble.
We are hunters, in a crowded world of hungry people and no game.

Without the non-emotional slaughter of the roads; with Ralph Nader types running wild;

Even more of us would be unemployed.

Imagine all the aborted fetuses had grown to fruition instead.
Life on Earth for humans would be much worse.
Its bad enough already.

It is God's will that some of us should go out tonight and accidentally run over someone in our car. With luck, it will be a woman in her child-bearing prime.

I hope this doesn't sound cynical.
I have a better plan, I'm fairly certain.

But so far, its more unpopular than the clumsy way we justify killing off our youth.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I have a hunch you've been (erroneously) inferring the word 'intentional' (and/or 'premeditated'', 'conscious' etc) when you've read my posts about we humans killing each other with cars

Look. The topic at hand is: Why are we indifferent when killing an ant but not when killing a dog or a human being? (Notice that it is a fact that we are not indifferent when killing a human being)

So the dialogue goes as it follows:
Me: We do not kill human beings with the same ease we kill other animals because of a mixture of empathy and closeness to our species
You: Not true. Look at all those people killing other people with cars
Me: But that's not done intentionally. Those are accidents
You: I never claimed it was intentional

So far, your point seems to be:

However... we do live in a world where we (at least subconsciously) know that today, tomorrow and every other day in the forseeable future, humans WILL be killed, by us, driving cars on journeys that we don't NEED to make

Oh give me a break. I think you are intentionally moving the goalposts here. So now you're inferring that we are as indifferent to kill a human being as we are to kill an ant, because by driving cars we are consciously risking hitting someone when we could as well drive a bicycle?

Sorry, but that just seems like incoherent drivel. As Randfan pointed out, we are all equally putting each other at risk by driving. It's an agreed task with agreed risks that most of us try to avoid. If we're trying to avoid them, that alone is proof that we're not consciously trying to kill each other and that we are not indifferent to the death of other people. The evolution of transit laws and car safety is evidence of a willful attempt at living in a society where we can diminish accidents to the very minimum. The fact that we're risking living in a society where driving a car or operating a construction machine is risky, doesn't mean we are indifferent to the death of humans. It certainly doesn't follow that when we do mess up, and we accidentally hit someone, that we treat it with the same indifference we do when we accidentally kill a bug (Heck, even if we hit a roadkill, like a deer or a squirrel, we feel bad. But we also know that we can't control everything that happens in the complex phenomena of interacting with every living thing in the world).

[six7s]

... that alone is proof that we're not consciously trying to kill each other:rolleyes: Accusing me of 'shifting the goalposts' seems absurd when you ignore what I've written

Bye!

[Ron_Tomkins]

Thanks for showing you are indeed not interested in any serious conversation.

I have taken the effort of compressing my whole argument and asked you to clarify yours, which you haven't. Your last post shows that you, most likely, simply want to play a game of rhetorics and I will not go by that.
Feel free to prove me wrong any time by presenting your argument in a way that is concise and clear so a discussion can be held without getting into games of sophistry.

[AkuManiMani]

Why is a puppy more important and valuable than an ant?

More meat.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Agreed with what everyone else said but there's also the fact that a puppy or a dog is a much more complex and advanced creature than an ant. It is "smarter"- well, arguably smarter, smarter according to some standards- and it has more capacity to feel both pain and affection.

So kicking a dog and killing an ant are two very different acts.

[aviolet4u]

Agreed with what everyone else said but there's also the fact that a puppy or a dog is a much more complex and advanced creature than an ant. It is "smarter"- well, arguably smarter, smarter according to some standards- and it has more capacity to feel both pain and affection.

So kicking a dog and killing an ant are two very different acts.


well when you accidently squish an ant and its still moving a leg and trying to walk away mutilated...just because you can't hear its pain doesn't mean its not suffering just as much. Put it out of its misery as fast as you can. :blush:

[RandFan]

Agreed with what everyone else said but there's also the fact that a puppy or a dog is a much more complex and advanced creature than an ant. It is "smarter"- well, arguably smarter, smarter according to some standards- and it has more capacity to feel both pain and affection.

So kicking a dog and killing an ant are two very different acts.Agreed. Except that pigs are arguably smarter than dogs and I like bacon.

[fuelair]

I think the answer can be reduced to the emotional response humans experience with regards to faces. A large portion of our brain is used for facial recognition. We empathize with cute faces. This empathy is why the puppy wins.

And, why Charlotte's Web and Antz do well at the box office - but don't in the least change our perception of ants or spiders.

[fuelair]

Further:


Of what species are the members of PETA?
Something I have wondered about myself!!!:)

[ZirconBlue]

I was going to answer that puppies are more filling, but I thought better of it...

Taste. If you barbecued an ant, you'd hardly get any eating out of it, but a puppy... mmm... What, you're saying that's just me? ;)

Because I can make a full, satisfactory meal out of a puppy, and a single ant just isn't filling at all.

:D

More meat.


Come on, people. Before posting your one-liner, can you at least read the thread first to see if your joke has already been made?

[Metullus]

Come on, people. Before posting your one-liner, can you at least read the thread first to see if your joke has already been made?But...but...:(

[ZirconBlue]

But...but...:(

Don't worry. You got there first, so you're off the hook. ;)

[Marduk]

Why is a puppy more important and valuable than an ant?
Ants don't do toilet roll commercials.
:p

[NewtonTrino]

Has anyone considered the fact that we share a lot more genes with a puppy than with an ant?

[Metullus]

Don't worry. You got there first, so you're off the hook. ;)Timing is everything... :)

[dlorde]

Douglas Hofstadter addresses this question in a chapter in 'I Am A Strange Loop', where he uses the notion of 'soul' (in an explicitly non-religious way) to encapsulate the notion of level of consciousness and complexity of an organism. The higher the level of consciousness and complexity, the bigger the 'soul'. With regard to puppies and babies, he suggests that though they do have much smaller 'souls' than the mature adult, they are recognised to have the potential to develop much larger 'souls', and as additional protection, have evolved 'cuteness' to trigger protective parental emotions ;)

So, in his estimation, an ant has a tiny, almost negligible 'soul' and no potential to enlarge it, whereas a puppy has a considerably larger 'soul' with significant potential for growth - and cuteness thrown in for good measure...

[quarky]

When comparing ants to puppies (what a weird forum), I think its only fair to correlate the whole colony of ants with the puppy.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Agreed with what everyone else said but there's also the fact that a puppy or a dog is a much more complex and advanced creature than an ant. It is "smarter"- well, arguably smarter, smarter according to some standards- and it has more capacity to feel both pain and affection.

So kicking a dog and killing an ant are two very different acts.

So is the right to live decided by who is smarter and more complex?
I don't know.

I think that all creatures have the same exact rights. That we have a consciousness and that we are able to admire the complexity of the world, and that we can establish criterias of comparison, does not mean that there is an inherent value in every creature. It is just a reflection of how we see things, and how we value them.

It is up to us to admit that we are indeed biased toward certain creatures, that we have a preference for others, and that such preference is rooted in our culture and our genetics (how close we are genetically to such creature). But in a universe that seems to obey basic laws, which follow no dictation from no creator, and thus have no purpose; there is no reason to believe that there are such rating values for each living creature.

[Ron_Tomkins]

On the other hand, I felt very bad about the ant that got killed by the scorpion in "Honey, I shrunk the Kids" :D

[learner]

May be of interest..
Just listening to breaking news report on the radio. It seems that two contestants in the " b celeb in the Australian jungle" programme shown on British T.V, have killed and ate a Rat. One contestant is a chef. Thats handy!
A Spokesman for the australian society for the prevention of cruelty to animals wants them prosecuted.
Seems its not on to kill a Rat, pet or not, for the purpose of entertainment.
Seems fair to me.
Slight problem. One of the supposedly more entertaining tasks the celebs are put through is to eat various insects. for entertainment. Its shown on film.
The Rats demise wasnt.
Strange.
.

[Marduk]

May be of interest..
Just listening to breaking news report on the radio, It seems that two contestants in the " b celeb in the jungle" programme on british tv have killed and ate a Rat. one is a chef (celeb). Thats handy!
A Spokesman for the australian society for the prevention of cruelty to animals wants them prosecuted.
Seems its not on to kill a Rat, pet or not, for the purpose of entertainment.
Seems fair to me.
Slight problem. One of the supposedly more entertaining tasks the celebs are put through is to eat various insects. for entertainment, its shown on film. the Rat episode wasnt.
Strange
.

Jeeesus H Christ, theyre in a tropical country, whats wrong with lobster.

[Cavemonster]

I do wonder why pigs seem exempt.
Almost all other animals, we seem to have sympathy roughly determined by complexity and similarity to humans, yet pigs are fair game.

One might argue that their usefullness as food overrides our sympathies. Puppies and kitties are far more carnivorous and terribly inefficient for converting grain surplus into meat. ANd looking at baby piglets, most people would agree they're adorable... but not so adorable that we forget how tasty they are.

[Howie Felterbush]

OK, I checked and didn't see this one...

You generally have to stomp a puppy two or three times to effectively kill it. An ant only takes one stomp.

[learner]

OK, I checked and didn't see this one...

You generally have to stomp a puppy two or three times to effectively kill it. An ant only takes one stomp.


Wear "Hush puppy" shoes. designed for the job. One clean kick. Job done.

They dont call them Hush puppy for nothing you know.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ironically enough, last night I had a dream that my mother, some friends and I were trying to escape this warehouse that was infested with horrible bugs and centipedes; and we were joined by our cats. I remember fearing that the cats were gonna be killed by the scorpions and other "ugly" creatures. And I think I even managed to stomp on some of them.

Another unconscious reflection of my bias towards the creatures that I feel close to, and the ones I feel repulsed by.