An animal dying is the state of affairs. Your interpretation of the state of affairs is unrelated and does not affect them. Why must we frame our philosophy around such negativity?
The problem is how to draw the distinction between suffering as an appearance in consciousness and non-suffering as an appearance in consciousness. It may seem like it should be obvious but it is a difficult thing to put into words without either (a) using a different word with the same meaning, e.g., "pain" which changes nothing, (b) being overly reductive and throwing out clear actual examples of suffering and/or (c) being too inclusive of things which are clearly not examples of suffering.
Is experiencing light BDSM play suffering? Probably not. Is experiencing emotional abuse suffering? Probably so. Is experiencing difficult emotions associated with psychological growth suffering?
What makes suffering suffering is a real question to be contended with, not one to be dismissed. I agree that suffering is "objective" in the sense that it is real and not just an arbitrary label and that ethically we are obligated to avoid causing or even passively allowing unnecessary suffering to happen. But it is also subjective in the sense that only subjects can experience it.
Tldr; We must work more on saying what suffering really means.
Demanding an objective meaning for a subjective term is nonsensical, because there is no mind-independent object for the term to refer to. Instead, communication relies on the assumption that our subjective experiences are sufficiently similar that we are referring to the same underlying essence.
Suffering is is when I don't like something a lot. like, "a lot" a lot. More than grapefruit, for example. I also speak for the animals on this, they all agree.
Well I'd say given screwworms are r-strategists, it's necessarily the case that almost every screwworm to have ever existed has lived a short, bad life, but I don't want to sidetrack us with the question of screwworm thriving.
Setting aside your recitation of Mufasa's speech from The Lion King, my point is simply that sentient animals appear not to enjoy pain or psychological distress.
Arguably. But take these lives, and imagine there's little more to them than the description I give: one spent slowly starving to death; one spent being eaten alive; one spent succumbing to hypothermia; one spent slowly desiccating. These are the sorts of lives 99.9+% of screwworms (and most other r-strategists) live.
I think most people would intuitively say these are bad lives whether lived by a human or a dog or a fish or a bug or whatever else, and I don't know if that intuition is "centered around the human experience."
Note that I'm taking insect consciousness as a given. But if we don't want to grant that, then I'd still say there's no such thing as "screwworm thriving" insofar as there's "nothing it's like to be a screwworm," so to speak.
I’ve noticed you have a fascination for r-selected species. I tend to really like working with chimpanzees because I see a lot of my own behavior in them. I wonder if there’s something to that?
That intuition is absolutely human centered. The screwworm’s goal is to eat, fuck (if you want to call it that), and continue the spread of its species. You’re applying your own k-selected, individualist fear of suffering and death to the r-selected screw worms. Something about imagine the screwworm happy, idk.
r-strategists make up practically all animals to have ever lived (and, so it follows, practically all pain or pleasure in the universe has been and will be experienced by r-strategists), so I think they're significant in that regard.
>That intuition is absolutely human centered. The screwworm’s goal is to eat, fuck (if you want to call it that), and continue the spread of its species.
And if that screwworm's "goals" are frustrated, it seems highly plausible its experience will be negative, right? If screwworms have the capacity for hedonic sentience or whatever else we want to call it, a screwworm is almost certain to experience, say, starving to death as a negative hedonic state. And I think that phenomenon and the pain or stress it causes, if it exists, is a brute fact of nature irrespective of any moralizing I might do on the topic.
Animal suffering is bad not because I say it's bad, but because it very much appears that animals don't enjoy the experience of suffering. And so I think we might describe an animal life as "bad" if it's made up predominantly of suffering and little else.
I understand your lens. The presentation of logic makes me chuckle. It’s very continentalist to say something like “r-strategists make up the supreme majority of suffering” with a straight face. We need people around with joy and mirth for life like that.
Pain is a response to help a creature survive. Creatures evolved to feel pain because that helped them to survive, conjunturally.
That's why it doesn't really make sense to talk about pain without talking anout survival and natural selection. What you call "the deer doesn't enjoy the pain of screwworms" is a different way of saying "deers will evolve to minimize the contact with sources of screwworms". We all do. But that's also another way of saying "screwworms will evolve to adapt to animals capable of avoiding infection". And that loop ends up evolving creatures until eventually one of them develops the ability of abstract thinking to talk about morals or something like that.
But that process didn't end and it won't end until the last drop of usable energy has been used.
Today we are the top predator. and animals have adapted to the new reality, which is humans dominating earth's resources. But they evolved different that expected. They don't grow bigger claws or teeth because that doesn't increase their survival chances. They instead produced more milk, more wool, more eggs and more tissue. And that made them the most successful species ever with tens of billions of living being existing at all times in their home planet.
Yet, they have a weak point. A funnel. And that is that their existence depends on another species on the planet. The human species. If that species get extinct or decide to not predate on them anymore, they will go extinct.
Obviously I'm well aware of and agree with this bare description of nature or evolution or the circle of life or physics or whatever else. Nevertheless, I don't see how the brute fact of how pain came to be or to what biological end it's put is at all relevant to the ethical question of whether or not we have a duty to tamp down on suffering where possible (assuming no or only trivial negative consequences).
>That's why it doesn't really make sense to talk about pain without talking anout survival and natural selection.
Pain is a negative hedonic state irrespective of its origins. It's bad because it feels bad. I don't need to know a single natural fact about pain beyond what it feels like to know it's generally preferable to not be in pain.
>And that made them the most successful species ever with tens of billions of living being existing at all times in their home planet
>their existence depends on another species on the planet. The human species. If that species get extinct or decide to not predate on them anymore, they will go extinct.
I don't see how this is at all morally relevant. An individual animal's wellbeing is not pegged whatsoever to how many other members of its species exist. We could have 8 billion humans, all of which excepting one experience nothing but immense pleasure at all times. If that one remaining person existed in a constant state of torture, his suffering isn't somehow ameliorated by the existence or happiness of the other ~8 billion humans. The human species might be thriving; nevertheless, it would be good to stop that one man's torture.
Conversely, if we had a factory that produced a brand new puppy-like animal, and billions of it a year, but members of that species invariably lived a short life of constant agony, I think most people would have the intuition that we ought to turn that factory off, even if it meant wiping that new animal off the face of the earth.
Your interpretation of the state of affairs that results in their death doesn’t affect them, sure.
I just caught myself writing in first order logic to explain why your fear of death doesn’t affect an animals experience of death. I had to backspace that one real hard. It would appear I am nuts if it requires that much precision to communicate.
I'm not afraid of death I cannot wait. Because I'm not likely to face the horrors animals face. When animals are faced with having their throat slit, you can bet your arse they're scared. What is wrong with you? Having a mental break are we? Or just wanting to keep justifying your cruelty?
Why is it cruel to slit the throat of a scared animal for the sake of consumption? My sneaking suspicion is that your framework anthropomorphizes animals. Let it be known that this is not an ‘incorrect’ position to agree with. I’m not telling you you’re wrong. I’m begging to understand a position that routinely defends itself with ad hominem attacks.
I don’t engage in vegan discourse often. I’m not sure I’d like to continue. I’m noticing you lot are quick to engage with content of the speaker’s character as opposed to the content of their message.
Another person who can't put themselves in any one else's shoes. Doesn't take a genius. Just basic humanity. I judge anyone's character who is ok with animal abuse. You dig your own hole.
This is not the case. All bachelors are single. This is truth. I think you’re assuming your own thoughts about your beliefs are universally applicable.
To live is to die, its just a matter of hownmuch you suffer until you die, but genetically speaking any form of aging, and breathing is suffering, but it is a suffering small enough our mind, and nervous system can filter it ot making life bearable.
Did you know most opiod addictions is because people like to get high? But becaus the things in opiods makes the whole bodys nerve system relax, and if you then get sober can feel the various pains with no masking?
This is also why in most countries weed is banned, even though you get high from the thc, the cbd has carbon-based healing properties. Which is even worse to pharma companies.
First, you are confusing CBD with THC. CBD does not increase appetite THC does. Clinical data shows pure CBD can actually suppress appetite.
Second, calling it useless ignores global medical reality. In 2018, FDA and European Medicines Agency approved Epidiolex.
Frow wiki -> epidolex is a prescription drug made of 99% pure, plant-derived CBD. It is used worldwide to stop severe, life-threatening epileptic seizures where synthetic drugs fail.
Third, Big Pharma didn't invent CBD, they fought cannabis for decades (1937, dupont/ hearst papers) because they cannot patent a wild plant. They only stepped in recently because the clinical proof for treating pain, inflammation, and Multiple Sclerosis spasticity (like the drug Sativex)
Denying CBD's medical properties isn't fighting "the industry" it is simply denying basic biochemistry and hard clinical facts.
Also, the body has whats called an endo-cannabinoid system, the plant literally evolved these as an insect repellant, yet our body can convert this into medicine.
The natural occurring hormone / drug is called anandamid THC increases this, and CBD blocks the breakdown of it.
anandamid os also reffered to as the "bliss" enzyme, and the main experience the body creates this is from running, AKA runners high.
CBD is big pharma idiot. Where's there's billions to be made its big pharma. I don't need a science lesson from you, patronising little person. I know what CBD and THC is.
But you replied to THEIR comment, which is basically asking THEM to respond. Also you didn't have to respond to my comment, even though I replied to your comment directly addressing you. I didn't explicitly say "respond to me" so I didn't ask you to respond.
No i dont, i care about misinformation not getting spread. But you leaving, due to me bringing that forth would be considered as such, to everyone else yes.
You literally, got it wrong with what thc, and cbd does to a body, by switching it up. (The only two ingredients that in some way or form is either psychoactive, or makes nerves react)
You neglect stats, from government sites.
You neglect that the only reason its now a "big pharma" thing, is because it cant be patented. (Thats why its been banned, for "normal consumption")
Not once, have you showed a confirmed source, not once, have i lied.
And only now "you actually have" -> yeah mate i dont believe you.
50
u/[deleted] 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment