home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.environment:10123 sci.psychology:3276
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!reed!sharvy
- From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
- Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
- Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
- Message-ID: <1992Jul27.213339.4344@reed.edu>
- Date: 27 Jul 92 21:33:39 GMT
- Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul27.213339.4344
- References: <MAGNUS.92Jul25182543@is19e0s00.jaist-east.ac.jp> <1992Jul26.070132.13837@reed.edu> <1992Jul27.092653.21363@ke4zv.uucp>
- Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Jul27.092653.21363@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
- >In article <1992Jul26.070132.13837@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
- >>
- >>I've been thinking more about the argument that whales lack a complex
- >>social structure, and therefore lack higher intelligence. A better criterion
- >>than complexity, however, is quality: do some whale species have a social
- >>structure more desirable than our own? One that leads to a better life? I
- >>have only an interested layman's knowledge of whales, but my impression is that
- >>the social activities of some whale species consists primarily of: playing,
- >>eating and humping. I can't imagine a better social structure, and I think
- >>ours positively sucks in comparison. A social structure like that is the
- >>utopian ideal of which we all dream; we are truly inferior beings. Many
- >>of our "structures" which we think of as indicative of our superiority
- >>become irrelevant when "complexity" is replaced by "quality" in the criteria
- >>for being superior. And doesn't that substition make sense?
- >
- >GACK! If playing, eating, and humping were all that there were to life,
- >then I don't blame whales for beaching themselves. If that's all there
- >were to my life, I'd suicide too. That's an animal existence with nothing
- >worthwhile to accomplish, no way to make your mark on the world, leave it
- >a better (or at least different) place. No thank you Lotus eater.
-
- Fine, whatever turns you on. But do you think "Lotus eaters" must be
- of a lower order of intelligence and therefore without rights because
- of their lifestyle?
-
- --
- Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
-