NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/politics/animals/9804

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 14.2 KB | 303 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!sasquatch!young
From: [e-mail] (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: young@sasquatch
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 17:39:47 GMT
Lines: 289

In <[e-mail]>, Bob Black writes:
>
>In Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>>
In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Martin Hulsey) writes:
mh>
mh>  Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there
mh>  is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save
mh>  members of another species.

In <[e-mail]>, Bob Black writes:
rb>
rb>      1.Woman and children escape burning house.  Woman then dies of smoke
rb>     inhalation, after running back in to save pets.
rb>
rb>      2.Pit bull attacks young girl while horrified family looks on.
rb>     Family German shepherd intervenes between pit bull and girl,
rb>     thereby slowing the attack long enough for help to be summoned.
rb>     Shepherd dies but the girl's life is saved thanks to the extra
rb>     time provided by the shepherd for help to arrive.

rb> If the woman had communicated, just prior to the rescue attempt, that
rb> she knew she would die but was going ahead nevertheless, would this IYO
rb> (or in Martin's) meet the challenge?

[...]

   The point is that she did NOT communicate such knowledge; the example
   is, therefore, flawed.  In fact, all available evidence points to the fact
   that she would have altered her behavior had she had a certain knowledge
   of death.  You've admitted as much:

    "I agree that few H.S.S would be likely to
    knowingly exchange their lives for their pets."

   Martin's challenge remains unrefuted by this example.

[...]

>>     I'm not an expert in canine psychology, but the literature is rife
>>     with proposed theories of canine behavior with respect to humans,
>>     and most seem to agree that today's family dog is a product of
>>     millenia of breeding for neoteny (so it looks to US for food,
>>     rather than hunting for its own), and the cultivation of the
>>     "pack" instinct, which is what made them useful to us in the first
>>     place: they'd follow orders.
>>
>>     This is pretty standard stuff, but it is, admittedly, still theory...
>>     ...albeit one which seems to match the observed actions of domestic
>>     canines quite well, as many have pointed out.
>
>Sure, but the question focused on the dog's ability to distinguish
>between species and our ability to know that he has this level of
>discernment.  Ever had a female canine in season approach you and show
>all the body language indicating she would like you to breed her?

   No, but I've had MALE dogs try to mate with my leg.  And I'm not sure I'd
   recognize a come-on from a female dog in any case.

>Do dogs believe that fellow (human) pack members are of the same species?

   As far as anyone can tell, dogs think that anything that seems to follow
   pack rules is another dog.  As a human, you supply not only food, but
   a leader image to which the dog can relate as another dog.  If, in the
   case of wild canids, you do not act like a pack member, you're fair game
   for lunch...assuming that you're also perceived as vulnerable enough to
   leave the canid a fairly good chance of coming out uninjured.  Or, perhaps,
   you're simply avoided as a possible threat.

>Would dogs make speciesist decisions
>when forced to select between fellow human pack members and canine
>non-pack members?

   I guess I don't catch your drift here...if the human is perceived as a
   member of "the pack" then, by definition, the human is perceived as a dog
   and there is no conflict in logic.  The thought process would be, "this
   pack member's in trouble, I'll defend him from that member of the other
   pack who can't help me to spread my genes."  [Of course, we're making
   liberal use of literary license in ascribing words or even conscious
   thoughts to the process.]

   I think it might be useful if you were to tell me precisely what it is
   you mean when you say "speciesist," since the word isn't in my dictionary.

>>>Secondly, either dogs can distinguish between species or they can't.  If
>>>they can, then the shepherd in the example was at the very least putting
>>>himself in very great danger for a member of another species.  This
>>>seems to threaten Martin's claim that all species are speciesist (or at
>>>least that all members of all species are speciesist all the time).
>>
>>     Not at all, as I see it: it has been proposed that ALL behaviors
>>     are undertaken to protect the ability to propagate one's own genes.
>>     This results in a kind of "hierarchy of importance" beginning with
>>     the individual and expanding outward in waves of lesser importance
>>     to those creatures which can affect said propagation of genes.
>>
>>     Members of one's own pack are clearly more beneficial to the
>>     propagation of one's genes than members of a pack which competes
>>     for resources, or even mating rights.  But even here, wolves (for
>>     example) don't regularly kill and eat each other as a normal source
>>     of food: the species is protected.  Other species, however, are
>>     "fair game."
>>
>>     I don't see that the general idea of "speciesism" is compromised in
>>     the least simply because self-interest supercedes it occasionally.
>
>Occasionally?  Doesn't self-interest more often than not supersede
>speciesism when the two are in conflict?

   The key phrase being "when the two are in conflict."

>Isn't speciesism just one form of self-interest?

   Without thinking about it TOO hard, that seems a reasonable conclusion.
   I reserve the right to contradict myself if, after appropriate cogitation,
   I find that I don't agree, however.  :-)

   Also, keep in mind that MY idea of the definition of "speciesism" may not
   coincide with yours...thus, the request for a definition, above.

>>>If the shepherd had communicated, just prior to the rescue attempt, that
>>>he knew he would die but was going ahead nevertheless, would this IYO
>>>(or in Martin's) meet the challenge?
>>
>>     No...it's not INTER-species.
>
>I was referring to a canid communicating to a hominid.  Why do you say
>this is not INTER-species?

   If the dog thinks that the human is just another dog, then it's not an
   INTER-species event for the dog.  And the challenge was for the DOG to
   understand the loss of life which would be involved, not the observing
   humans.

>Dog / human --> inter-species, ... at least from the human viewpoint.
>Only if the dog is incapable of distinguishing between species, would it
>make sense to characterize this relationship as intra-species.  And if
>dogs can't distinguish between species, what does being speciesist mean
>here?

   I'm sorry, but this sounds like doubletalk to me.  Why should the dog's
   (in)ability to distinguish between species call into question the concept
   of speciesism as postulated by humans?  As _I_ understand it, speciesism
   refers to the idea that members of a given species treat other members
   of the same species preferentially.  Wolves don't often kill and eat
   other wolves, but most any other species makes an acceptable meal.

   Perhaps the definition of "speciesist" that you're going to supply will
   help.

   It occurs to me that a clarification is required: species can distinguish
   other species to the extent that the proper actions, displays, scents, etc.
   identify another creature as a member of the same species.  In point of
   fact, the ability to recognize one's OWN species is critical to the
   survival of one's own species, else mating and reproduction would be a
   haphazard sort of thing.  By the same token, the ability to recognize
   that some creatures are threatening is imperative to individual survival,
   although the mechanism for this is usually experience rather than instinct.

   In the case of our legendary dog, this places creatures into three basic
   categories: other dogs, creatures which threaten individual safety, and
   all others.  None of these particularly support a claim of INTER-species
   altruism.

>> ry>     Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of
>> ry>     these:
>> ry>
>> ry>        1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the
>> ry>            one performing the activity, or,
>> ry>
>> ry>        2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>> ry>            in the one performing the activity.
>>
>>>It seems reasonable to me that every human activity probably CAN BE
>>>explained by either or both of these two motivations.  But this does not
>>>tell us that all human activity CAN ONLY BE explained by these.  Nor
>>>does it tell us that all human activity IS driven by these.  Remember
>>>that "can be" does not equal "is."  A big leap is needed in order to
>>>bridge the gap.
>>
>>     You're quite right, it's not PROOF, but if one verifies the presence
>>     of a particular microbe in every case of a given disease, then one
>>     would be silly to automatically assume that the disease is caused
>>     by another agent, would one not?  The mere presence of the microbe
>>     is not proof, of course, but it certainly bears investigation, does
>>     it not?  Similarly, if all human activity can be reduced to these
>>     two motives, is it not rather cavalier to dismiss them as irrelevant?
>
>Dismiss as irrelevant? Yes that would be cavalier.  Accept as gospel?
>That would be presumptuous, based on the fact that it may be impossible
>to ever really know what goes on in another's head.  I also would
>suggest that understanding motivation, with any degree of certainty, is
>orders of magnitude more difficult than causally correlating a microbe
>with a disease.

   Of course, the only one who can really KNOW with absolute certainty what
   motivates you is you...although there's no guarantee that even YOU will
   be able to judge correctly in all situations.  But the rest of us have
   no hope at all, except to relate you to our OWN experiences and assume
   that similarity nearly to the point of congruence offers some basis for
   comparison.  Think carefully about your motivations over the next several
   days and see whether you can really ascribe anything you do to any motive
   other than those detailed above.  Did you help your neighbor to code that
   difficult algorithm because he needed help, or was it really because you
   wanted his admiration for solving a thorny problem?  I refer you to the
   passage which immediately follows this paragraph.

>>     Any human action, no matter HOW altruistic it may seem, can be
>>     explained in selfish terms.  It seems unreasonable to deny this
>>     out of some misguided sense of human superiority.  We explain the
>>     actions of virtually ALL other animals in these terms, why should
>>     we be materially different?  Because our brains are more complex?
>>     Please.  The leap you envision may not be all that large.  Indeed,
>>     it would seem that a far larger leap is required to retreat from
>>     our non-human heritage.

[...]

>In  Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>>
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>> Martin Hulsey wrote (or at least I _think_ he did...I deleted too much):
>>
>>    All animals are speciesist
>>    Humans are animals, therefore,
>>    Humans are speciesist.
>>
>> >The problem with this is that it's not a species-specific claim.  You
>> >could replace "species" with family or pack or other sub-groups or
>> >cross-groups, and make all the same statements.  You're merely saying
>> >here that humans tend to give preference to those closest to them.
>>
>>     Perhaps, perhaps not.  The real question is this: is the statement
>>     wrong as presented?  ...
>
>My guess would be that it's wrong some of the time but not all the time.
>
>>    ...The simple fact that humans may place higher
>>     or lower priorities on other inter- and intra-species groups in no
>>     way invalidates the claim that, among other things, humans are
>>     speciesist.  The logic used does not exclude the other considerations
>>     you mention.
>
>No but it suggests that acting in a speciesist manner is subservient to
>acting in one's own self-interest, whenever the two conflict.

   It suggests no such thing, since it doesn't mention self-interest
   at all.

>>>Also, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in claims like these,
>>>if your intention is to cite animal behavior as a justification for
>>>human behavior.  If non-human animals are so worthy as to serve as
>>>ethical and behavioral guides for humans, then why is it right for
>>>humans to kill them for our own purposes?
>>
>>     Again, the real question is this: why is it NOT right for humans
>>     to kill other animals for our own purposes, given that other animals
>>     do exactly that?  ...
>
>For many of the same reasons that it's not right for humans to kill other
>humans.

   Wait a minute, you're starting to sound like another infamous poster in
   the t.p.a. forum.  One can't claim on the one hand that non-human animals
   are acceptable models for human behavior, and then claim on the other that
   the actions which are undertaken by these moral and ethical models do not
   apply to human behavior.  It's inconsistent, at the very least.

>Is it right for humans to torture other animals for our own purposes?

   Is it "right" for a lynx to "play" with a rabbit before it kills it for
   lunch?

>>    The point is that, as animals, we are not exempt
>>     from the motivations which drive non-human animals...and non-human
>>     animals kill other species (even humans) regularly for their own
>>     purposes.
>
>Nor are we necessarily *restricted to* only those motivations which drive
>non-human animals.

   True enough, but please do not forget our biological heritage of millions
   of years while you desperately try to make us somehow "better" than every
   other creature on the planet, based only on the activity of our brains.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)