The zoo statement: "We hope Colorado isn’t the place that sets the slippery slope in motion of whether your beloved and well-cared-for dog or cat should have habeas corpus and would be required to ‘go free,’ at the whim of someone else’s opinion of them"
The elephant (ha ha) in the room is another slippery slope leading to the question whether we should be killing and eating intelligent and social beings.
Intelligent and social beings are being killed all the time by other beings. But none of them have the outsized edge of intelligence and tooling we have. We are too big to be doing the killing.
I would argue that our true cruelty of killing other beings is that we specifically farm them in horrible conditions just to be our food. If all meat was hunted from nature, I would have no issues with it.
It's nowhere discussed in the article, so the other elephant in the room:
Our whole society is based on animals not having rights.
Some people see a gradation where we could have criteria to determine how many rights could each kind of animal have, and argue about small details. But of course the other point of view will be that any fissuring of the concept of animals as "things" will break the dam and there will be no going back.
For anyone seeing simple and clear lines that could be drawn, try to classify the elephants in the article, the differnt kind monkeys, pigs, cows, dogs , racoons and ant colonies. You see the wall that rises the minute elephants get special rights while cows keep feeding us, for instance.
Grading rights in this way could also have consequences for humans. If rights are to be assigned based on intelligence/sociability/capability then it opens the door to considering whether some humans might not qualify.
For some people it might look far fetched at first, but considering that women only got full voting rights around a few decades ago in most western countries, and are still far from there in so many countries, humans getting different rights is still totally a thing.
I would be all for more severe laws on abuse and living conditions for animals without it getting into the specifics of "intelligence" or "rights".
Something akin to the golden rule.
Let's be honest, these laws won't apply to the average person. It'll apply to where it really matters:
Poach an elephant in Africa and come home? Now you're going to court for murder.
Keep a Monkey inside your house? Looks like you're going to court for kidnapping.
Keep a dog outside chained to a fence and barely feed it? Looks like you're going to court for abuse (more severe than what we do now).
We can make provisions for things. Animals eat animals that's the reality of our world. But make cows sit in their own shit for years and eat food that's non nutritional for them? Now you're going to jail for mass incarceration of living things.
It's wildly accepted bees are quite intelligent. Let's treat the company who made insecticides that killed all the bees with genocide. Once that legal president is set, let's do the same for people who continue to use insecticides.
- Humans can easily treat other humans as things as well. Humans being special is to me more or a convenient fiction than something really at the core of our societies.
- For such a long time, we didn't have to care whether humans need to be separated from animals, the value scale was pretty flat in that respect. In many circumstances a horse from a higher up would be more important than a peasant's life.
> Human society is predicated on humans being special.
So far, so good.
> Any truly objective observer will say humans are no different from other animals on Earth
And...we hard exit stage left. It's sad when presumably good intentions, like the ethical treatment of animals and cultivating some well needed humility as a species, leads to such an unfounded point of view.
From a purely biological perspective, I could see that argument. But until animals start hunting, experimenting on, cultivating, and eating humans, en masse, creating symphonies or buildings that will last centuries, and start sending themselves to space, I'll continue to believe the difference between humans and animals is a qualitative and not just a quantitative difference. I don't think a truly objective observe could see it any other way.
> No human has run faster than a cheetah nor flown like an eagle.
No, but we have and regularly do move faster than any cheetah and fly higher and further than any eagle.
My point is that, to an objective observer, there are things that humans have done and can do that make us obviously separate, as a species, than any other animal on earth.
The scale of our combined efforts dwarf the efforts of other animals.
Especially when considering that, physically, we have very few advantages over other animals.
Arguing against that point is just playing mental gymnastics to say “oh actually humans aren’t really exceptional”
Idk what that might say about the “value” (whatever that means) of human life compared to other life.
A concrete example would be climate change. Humans have been pumping the atmosphere full of shit for a long time and it’s causing global climate changes. No other animal has affected the climate at that scale.
Bad or not, that kind of thing makes us humans exceptional.
Yet, we take great care in our own society to ensure people higher up in the food chain don’t take advantage of those below them—so much so, in fact, that the declaration of human rights declares we’re all born equal. If we sort ourselves in a hierarchy with other sentient beings, why doesn’t the same concept apply to them too?
Whether or not you describe it as "rights", the concept of animal cruelty has been around for centuries. Probably millennia. And the great majority of people seem comfortable with shades-of-gray classifications of animals for that purpose. If some kid is capturing squirrels and torturing them, he's "obviously" a psychopathic sicko. Vs. if Ed's Exterminators is fleabombing some cat lady's house - nobody's getting worked up about Evil Ed "gassing" the poor, innocent fleas.
Animals have rights, but they are not treated as humans (in some jurisdictions you can even be jailed for mistreating certain animals). The anthropomorphisation of animals is kind of a childish behaviour that affects too many city kids.
> Should elephants have the same rights as people?
Only if they pay taxes.
Jokes aside, there's no legal framework for this kind of stuff. "Full rights" means citizenship, passport, ability to travel, requirement to pay taxes etc etc. There's no other kinds of not-exactly-people-rights
> There's no other kinds of not-exactly-people-rights
There are rights without requirements for people that can't function in society: babies, infants, mentally handicapped, elderly with alzheimers, etc.
They all have rights even though they can't fight for them themselves. Especially the right to not be imprisoned or killed by humans, which are the typical fundamental rights sought after for animals with high cognitive capabilities. It's not all or nothing.
Paying taxes, citizenship and ability to travel are one level of abstraction higher and has nothing to do with these fundamental rights. Similarly some other rights like the right to vote are not granted to all citizens.
Rights don't exist. They're an idea made up by man. You have a right to what you can defend. In the long run, legalism will align itself with that iron law of nature.
I would protect the elephants because I like them. No use bringing rights into it.
It's not that simple, people systematically create groups with laws, and those groups (governments) defend laws with violence, so as long as something is law, things don't need to be strong to be protected. "The iron law of nature" defends grandmas, because groups (governments) don't like grandmas being attacked, and defend grandmas with violence. One could do the same with elephants, no problem.
I would argue,and I am sure that if they could the elephants would also argue, that colerado has NO juristiction in ANYTHING elepantocentric,or African,or Indian, or Asian in any way shape or form,did some one say sanctions?The idea that Colerado can get away with a blatant attempt at re colononising whole continents by declaring them as legato incognito is quite a little something
I do love Colorado,fine place,fine people,but they have most definitly had there legal system hijacked by others looking for a place to set precidents?,presidents?
In which case I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal. I would absolutely support this. Future generations will look back on pet ownership with clarity. It’s right there in the word - ownership.
I agree that keeping pets is probably immoral. But even if we accept that, there are multiple problems.
- There may not be much of a "wild" left to release animals into.
- Some animals have been bred for hundreds of generations and are now dependent on humans.
- Who has the right to speak for these animals? How do they divine what their client wants? It's not reasonable that any person on the street can bring a motion of habeas corpus on behalf of your dog.
Watching the foxes and squirrels that live near humans has suggested to me that domestication is two-way. The animals want what we have: spare food, shelter. Some of them are brave and willing enough to interact with us, some aren’t. Over time, more of them become brave and willing enough to interact.
Anyone that considers a cat their pet will observe that cats are mainly in it for themselves. They (try to) go out when they want, they’ll make it clear when they’re not in the mood for attention. They spend hours each day ignoring us whilst making use of the shelter we provide. They’ve been known to leave their humans and return to their familiar territories when their humans move house.
I don’t think pet “ownership” is inherently immoral, but some people’s implementations of it, and the terminology, probably are.
> I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal.
I don't think being given personhood would necessarily make it illegal. There is the precedent of dependent persons (mentally handicapped, babies) that have personhood but are also under the control of someone else that take decisions for them.
Elephants are not merely individual organisms, but they are social animals who group in herds. Likewise, ants, termites, and bees are eusocial insects, who may sometimes be considered individuals, but indeed, their hives and mounds comprise singular organisms which are greater than the sum of their parts.
Therefore, who deserves personhood and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? An individual termite, or its mound and colony as a whole? How mature and ancient is any given termite mound in the Australian outback? Do presidents and kings owe tribute to Termite Pharaohs?
How about equal rights for dogs? They are already family members and "children"!
We need something like child support for dogs. Shelters are horribly underfunded. Animal abusers deserve to have their income confiscated, so their family members can have a dignified life!
When a court is essentially dictating law, you know we are in trouble. When a law tries to do philosophy, it's even worse.
You can't do this stuff unless you have a working definition of personhood. Good luck with that. The moment that animals have rights you run into a huge series of ethical problems. Should dogs have rights? Should rats? Should insects? Should tardigrades? Should plants? Bacteria?
Most of these philosophical questions have no univocal answers and are usually the layperson can't go beyond "this cute animal has rights because I like it and this other animal doesn't because it's ugly", which frankly is appalling.
Elephants are social beings that live in groups, mourn their dead, raise their young, and care for their elders. They show emotions like anger, joy, boredom, and can be playful or even cheeky sometimes.
That you don’t take a second to consider they may have a subjective reality similar to your own, and instead ridicule the mere thought that these animals deserve some kind of protection, leaves me troubled.
I'm not replying in the context of the gp, but more curious about where you see a line to be drawn (or if you see no line ?).
I'm personally not sure where I stand, but there is a whole can of worms when we start to evaluate which animals "deserve" protection and on what grounds. For instance many of the characteristics you underline probably apply to crows, except crows are either categorized as nuisance or only tolerated in many places in the world.
And it might be too much expanding the subject, but there is a chance that most animals that are living in urban or technically advanced settings are getting some boost on "inteligence" and will show traits that make them better fit for a human environment, including better display of emotions for instance. I think we're already seeing such a development in cats, and as animals crossing that threshold would be protected while other get the boot, the selection for that trait could happen pretty fast.
The line I draw isn’t a clear one; my personal opinion is that we should try to minimise overall suffering, and that requires realising that almost all animals are capable of suffering the way we do. That doesn’t mean we should try to abdicate animal suffering altogether, because that just plain won’t work and conflicts with basic human interest. But we still can try to avoid suffering in every way possible.
In a broader scope, I think we’re just now realising that continuing the human way of life is just not sustainable and makes the planet inhospitable to Sapiens: We consume too much at once, and bring a disbalance to the global ecosystem. Fixing that requires rethinking a lot of the systems we rely on, and yes, also restraining ourselves from doing things that damage the ecosystem we depend on. A practical consequence is drastically reducing meat consumption and mass farming, and that ties back in to the point of reducing suffering.
I think we’re aware of an equilibrium in our environment, and if we look at the world close enough, everyone realises the status quo just won’t work much longer. Drawing the consequences is the hard part, and realising animals suffer and that that is a sign something is wrong is one of them.
A more poignant question is what rights activists ought to have and whether a non-trivial amount of resources ought to be spent addressing their concerns.
Should policies of countries be decided by a small number of single minded zealots whilst make pretending there's some sort of 'democracy' taking place?
Please tell me and perhaps others what delightful happenstance led you to conclude that you are the definitive arbiter of what this thread (and I assume all others?) is for.
The title indicates that this isn't a thread for the discussion of that small number of single minded zealots who have captured the US Court system in a thoroughly undemocratic manner .. but by all means discuss that further.
On behalf of our clients, the global elephant community, we formally request that you cease and desist from using their likeness as a party symbol. The unauthorized use of their image fails to represent their values, interests, and, most notably, their stance on environmental preservation.
Our clients object to being associated with policies that conflict with their dedication to ecological stewardship and community welfare. Therefore, we urge immediate cessation of any elephant imagery in relation to your party. Further unapproved usage may result in legal action.
It's long been known that certain animals are far more charismatic than others. Dogs and cats should never suffer, while thing like rats, mosquitos and wild boars are to be terminated on sight. Things such as hippos, squirrels and food sources are somewhere in between.
How much of that is us imposing our impression on their internal being? Are you certain that if we know enough about bees, mosquitoes and wild boars life we wouldn't empathize with them more?
LAWYER: Let me address... the elephant in the room.
EVERYONE IN THE GALLERY TURNS QUICKLY TO FACE THE BACK OF THE COURT. THERE STANDS AN ELEPHANT WEARING A TRENCHCOAT AND CARRYING A BRIEFCASE, READY TO GIVE HIS DEPOSITION.
The zoo statement: "We hope Colorado isn’t the place that sets the slippery slope in motion of whether your beloved and well-cared-for dog or cat should have habeas corpus and would be required to ‘go free,’ at the whim of someone else’s opinion of them"
The elephant (ha ha) in the room is another slippery slope leading to the question whether we should be killing and eating intelligent and social beings.
Intelligent and social beings are being killed all the time by other beings. But none of them have the outsized edge of intelligence and tooling we have. We are too big to be doing the killing.
I would argue that our true cruelty of killing other beings is that we specifically farm them in horrible conditions just to be our food. If all meat was hunted from nature, I would have no issues with it.
I’m a fairly staunch animal rights supporter. I think your take is the most reasonable.
Related: I hope that Spanish cephalopod farming operation gets axed by law soon for precisely the same reason.
Industrialized animal farming is a cruelty factory that (mostly) doesn’t even produce quality product. Senseless by any sane measure.
[dead]
It's nowhere discussed in the article, so the other elephant in the room:
Our whole society is based on animals not having rights.
Some people see a gradation where we could have criteria to determine how many rights could each kind of animal have, and argue about small details. But of course the other point of view will be that any fissuring of the concept of animals as "things" will break the dam and there will be no going back.
For anyone seeing simple and clear lines that could be drawn, try to classify the elephants in the article, the differnt kind monkeys, pigs, cows, dogs , racoons and ant colonies. You see the wall that rises the minute elephants get special rights while cows keep feeding us, for instance.
Grading rights in this way could also have consequences for humans. If rights are to be assigned based on intelligence/sociability/capability then it opens the door to considering whether some humans might not qualify.
Yes.
For some people it might look far fetched at first, but considering that women only got full voting rights around a few decades ago in most western countries, and are still far from there in so many countries, humans getting different rights is still totally a thing.
True...but in what jurisdiction do voting rights, or freedom of contract, start at birth? And is anyone campaigning for "justice" on that issue?
I would be all for more severe laws on abuse and living conditions for animals without it getting into the specifics of "intelligence" or "rights". Something akin to the golden rule.
Let's be honest, these laws won't apply to the average person. It'll apply to where it really matters:
Poach an elephant in Africa and come home? Now you're going to court for murder.
Keep a Monkey inside your house? Looks like you're going to court for kidnapping.
Keep a dog outside chained to a fence and barely feed it? Looks like you're going to court for abuse (more severe than what we do now).
We can make provisions for things. Animals eat animals that's the reality of our world. But make cows sit in their own shit for years and eat food that's non nutritional for them? Now you're going to jail for mass incarceration of living things.
It's wildly accepted bees are quite intelligent. Let's treat the company who made insecticides that killed all the bees with genocide. Once that legal president is set, let's do the same for people who continue to use insecticides.
I believe it is backwards: Human society is predicated on humans being special.
Any truly objective observer will say humans are no different from other animals on Earth.
And of course, an elephant will likely say they're special while everything else isn't.
I'd disagree for two reasons:
- Humans can easily treat other humans as things as well. Humans being special is to me more or a convenient fiction than something really at the core of our societies.
- For such a long time, we didn't have to care whether humans need to be separated from animals, the value scale was pretty flat in that respect. In many circumstances a horse from a higher up would be more important than a peasant's life.
> Human society is predicated on humans being special.
So far, so good.
> Any truly objective observer will say humans are no different from other animals on Earth
And...we hard exit stage left. It's sad when presumably good intentions, like the ethical treatment of animals and cultivating some well needed humility as a species, leads to such an unfounded point of view.
From a purely biological perspective, I could see that argument. But until animals start hunting, experimenting on, cultivating, and eating humans, en masse, creating symphonies or buildings that will last centuries, and start sending themselves to space, I'll continue to believe the difference between humans and animals is a qualitative and not just a quantitative difference. I don't think a truly objective observe could see it any other way.
> Any truly objective observer will say humans are no different from other animals on Earth.
Except in all the ways that we are?
What other species have left the planet and came back to tell the tale?
Dogs, monkeys, rats. Surely we took them there and back, but how sure are we that that wasn't their plan all along?!
Ham the chimpanzee for one.
It seems askew to attribute 8 billion+ humans with an attribute marking so few humans .
The point is that any human did that at all, whereas no other species has.
No human has run faster than a cheetah nor flown like an eagle.
What is your point that elevates the value of human life above that of other animals?
> No human has run faster than a cheetah nor flown like an eagle.
No, but we have and regularly do move faster than any cheetah and fly higher and further than any eagle.
My point is that, to an objective observer, there are things that humans have done and can do that make us obviously separate, as a species, than any other animal on earth.
The scale of our combined efforts dwarf the efforts of other animals. Especially when considering that, physically, we have very few advantages over other animals.
Arguing against that point is just playing mental gymnastics to say “oh actually humans aren’t really exceptional”
Idk what that might say about the “value” (whatever that means) of human life compared to other life.
A concrete example would be climate change. Humans have been pumping the atmosphere full of shit for a long time and it’s causing global climate changes. No other animal has affected the climate at that scale.
Bad or not, that kind of thing makes us humans exceptional.
We are on top, which makes us special.
The endemic diseases say we're not on top of the food chain.
We're special to each other because we wouldn't function very well if we didn't find each other special.
Yet, we take great care in our own society to ensure people higher up in the food chain don’t take advantage of those below them—so much so, in fact, that the declaration of human rights declares we’re all born equal. If we sort ourselves in a hierarchy with other sentient beings, why doesn’t the same concept apply to them too?
Whether or not you describe it as "rights", the concept of animal cruelty has been around for centuries. Probably millennia. And the great majority of people seem comfortable with shades-of-gray classifications of animals for that purpose. If some kid is capturing squirrels and torturing them, he's "obviously" a psychopathic sicko. Vs. if Ed's Exterminators is fleabombing some cat lady's house - nobody's getting worked up about Evil Ed "gassing" the poor, innocent fleas.
Animals have rights, but they are not treated as humans (in some jurisdictions you can even be jailed for mistreating certain animals). The anthropomorphisation of animals is kind of a childish behaviour that affects too many city kids.
> Should elephants have the same rights as people?
Only if they pay taxes. Jokes aside, there's no legal framework for this kind of stuff. "Full rights" means citizenship, passport, ability to travel, requirement to pay taxes etc etc. There's no other kinds of not-exactly-people-rights
> There's no other kinds of not-exactly-people-rights
There are rights without requirements for people that can't function in society: babies, infants, mentally handicapped, elderly with alzheimers, etc.
They all have rights even though they can't fight for them themselves. Especially the right to not be imprisoned or killed by humans, which are the typical fundamental rights sought after for animals with high cognitive capabilities. It's not all or nothing.
Paying taxes, citizenship and ability to travel are one level of abstraction higher and has nothing to do with these fundamental rights. Similarly some other rights like the right to vote are not granted to all citizens.
Don't forget military service. Time to bring back War Elephants--they deal Trample damage!
Also known as registering for the Selective Stampede System.
Pikemen deal +47 more damage to them, Halberdiers deal +60 more!
I wonder if an elephant will ever have a human as an emotional support animal? I've heard that they can become very close with their mahout.
Rights don't exist. They're an idea made up by man. You have a right to what you can defend. In the long run, legalism will align itself with that iron law of nature.
I would protect the elephants because I like them. No use bringing rights into it.
Idea's can't exist? Legalism will tend towards might equals right? Dubious at best.
>I would protect the elephants because I like them. No use bringing rights into it.
Rights are rarely needed to protect x from y when y likes x..
> No use bringing rights into it
History would beg to differ.
It's not that simple, people systematically create groups with laws, and those groups (governments) defend laws with violence, so as long as something is law, things don't need to be strong to be protected. "The iron law of nature" defends grandmas, because groups (governments) don't like grandmas being attacked, and defend grandmas with violence. One could do the same with elephants, no problem.
Rights are obligations we constrain ourselves with for the sake of others.
They absolutely do exist, but it's really unfortunate that we don't talk about them more accurately.
I would argue,and I am sure that if they could the elephants would also argue, that colerado has NO juristiction in ANYTHING elepantocentric,or African,or Indian, or Asian in any way shape or form,did some one say sanctions?The idea that Colerado can get away with a blatant attempt at re colononising whole continents by declaring them as legato incognito is quite a little something I do love Colorado,fine place,fine people,but they have most definitly had there legal system hijacked by others looking for a place to set precidents?,presidents?
Like they mentioned in the article, I can imagine it's only a matter of time before household pets are given personhood.
In which case I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal. I would absolutely support this. Future generations will look back on pet ownership with clarity. It’s right there in the word - ownership.
I agree that keeping pets is probably immoral. But even if we accept that, there are multiple problems.
- There may not be much of a "wild" left to release animals into.
- Some animals have been bred for hundreds of generations and are now dependent on humans.
- Who has the right to speak for these animals? How do they divine what their client wants? It's not reasonable that any person on the street can bring a motion of habeas corpus on behalf of your dog.
> I agree that keeping pets is probably immoral.
Watching the foxes and squirrels that live near humans has suggested to me that domestication is two-way. The animals want what we have: spare food, shelter. Some of them are brave and willing enough to interact with us, some aren’t. Over time, more of them become brave and willing enough to interact.
Anyone that considers a cat their pet will observe that cats are mainly in it for themselves. They (try to) go out when they want, they’ll make it clear when they’re not in the mood for attention. They spend hours each day ignoring us whilst making use of the shelter we provide. They’ve been known to leave their humans and return to their familiar territories when their humans move house.
I don’t think pet “ownership” is inherently immoral, but some people’s implementations of it, and the terminology, probably are.
> I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal.
I don't think being given personhood would necessarily make it illegal. There is the precedent of dependent persons (mentally handicapped, babies) that have personhood but are also under the control of someone else that take decisions for them.
Can't wait for the legislation so I can finally be released from servitude to my cat. /s
My dog already thinks he's a person. He wants to eat people food.
And house flies would need to be recognized as persons next.
Why pets but not the animals we eat?
Probably not, but there likely should be legal provisions for clearly intelligent animals like elephants that elevate them above say a snail or mouse.
We generally are too soft on animals abuse and abuse of an animal like an elephant should carry a sentence similar to abusing a person.
Elephants are not merely individual organisms, but they are social animals who group in herds. Likewise, ants, termites, and bees are eusocial insects, who may sometimes be considered individuals, but indeed, their hives and mounds comprise singular organisms which are greater than the sum of their parts.
Therefore, who deserves personhood and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? An individual termite, or its mound and colony as a whole? How mature and ancient is any given termite mound in the Australian outback? Do presidents and kings owe tribute to Termite Pharaohs?
People in which part of the world? Need to be specific, elephants (should) probably care just about how much rights they’re getting.
How about equal rights for dogs? They are already family members and "children"!
We need something like child support for dogs. Shelters are horribly underfunded. Animal abusers deserve to have their income confiscated, so their family members can have a dignified life!
When a court is essentially dictating law, you know we are in trouble. When a law tries to do philosophy, it's even worse.
You can't do this stuff unless you have a working definition of personhood. Good luck with that. The moment that animals have rights you run into a huge series of ethical problems. Should dogs have rights? Should rats? Should insects? Should tardigrades? Should plants? Bacteria?
Most of these philosophical questions have no univocal answers and are usually the layperson can't go beyond "this cute animal has rights because I like it and this other animal doesn't because it's ugly", which frankly is appalling.
> Should elephants have the same rights as people? A Colorado court may decide
How about slugs ? Or bacteria ?
Elephants are social beings that live in groups, mourn their dead, raise their young, and care for their elders. They show emotions like anger, joy, boredom, and can be playful or even cheeky sometimes.
That you don’t take a second to consider they may have a subjective reality similar to your own, and instead ridicule the mere thought that these animals deserve some kind of protection, leaves me troubled.
I'm not replying in the context of the gp, but more curious about where you see a line to be drawn (or if you see no line ?).
I'm personally not sure where I stand, but there is a whole can of worms when we start to evaluate which animals "deserve" protection and on what grounds. For instance many of the characteristics you underline probably apply to crows, except crows are either categorized as nuisance or only tolerated in many places in the world.
And it might be too much expanding the subject, but there is a chance that most animals that are living in urban or technically advanced settings are getting some boost on "inteligence" and will show traits that make them better fit for a human environment, including better display of emotions for instance. I think we're already seeing such a development in cats, and as animals crossing that threshold would be protected while other get the boot, the selection for that trait could happen pretty fast.
The line I draw isn’t a clear one; my personal opinion is that we should try to minimise overall suffering, and that requires realising that almost all animals are capable of suffering the way we do. That doesn’t mean we should try to abdicate animal suffering altogether, because that just plain won’t work and conflicts with basic human interest. But we still can try to avoid suffering in every way possible.
In a broader scope, I think we’re just now realising that continuing the human way of life is just not sustainable and makes the planet inhospitable to Sapiens: We consume too much at once, and bring a disbalance to the global ecosystem. Fixing that requires rethinking a lot of the systems we rely on, and yes, also restraining ourselves from doing things that damage the ecosystem we depend on. A practical consequence is drastically reducing meat consumption and mass farming, and that ties back in to the point of reducing suffering.
I think we’re aware of an equilibrium in our environment, and if we look at the world close enough, everyone realises the status quo just won’t work much longer. Drawing the consequences is the hard part, and realising animals suffer and that that is a sign something is wrong is one of them.
A more poignant question is what rights activists ought to have and whether a non-trivial amount of resources ought to be spent addressing their concerns.
Should policies of countries be decided by a small number of single minded zealots whilst make pretending there's some sort of 'democracy' taking place?
Anyhoo :)
This isn't the thread for the undemocratic Federalist capture of the US Court system.
Please tell me and perhaps others what delightful happenstance led you to conclude that you are the definitive arbiter of what this thread (and I assume all others?) is for.
I've made no such conclusion, you do as you wish.
The title indicates that this isn't a thread for the discussion of that small number of single minded zealots who have captured the US Court system in a thoroughly undemocratic manner .. but by all means discuss that further.
Can it vote?
It would obviously vote Republican.
Or they might oppose:
[Elephant Lawyer]: Dear Republican Party,
On behalf of our clients, the global elephant community, we formally request that you cease and desist from using their likeness as a party symbol. The unauthorized use of their image fails to represent their values, interests, and, most notably, their stance on environmental preservation.
Our clients object to being associated with policies that conflict with their dedication to ecological stewardship and community welfare. Therefore, we urge immediate cessation of any elephant imagery in relation to your party. Further unapproved usage may result in legal action.
Sincerely, Counsel for Proboscidea
No.
Glad we cleared that up.
Cats and dogs have more rights than other animals for seemingly arbitrary reasons too. At the end of the day, its all whatever we decide is matters.
It's long been known that certain animals are far more charismatic than others. Dogs and cats should never suffer, while thing like rats, mosquitos and wild boars are to be terminated on sight. Things such as hippos, squirrels and food sources are somewhere in between.
How much of that is us imposing our impression on their internal being? Are you certain that if we know enough about bees, mosquitoes and wild boars life we wouldn't empathize with them more?
Should we not allocate rights based on varying levels of consciousness and sentience as emergent phenomena?
What a waste of taxpayer money. This nonsense should've been thrown out long before it got to court.
The animal rights group NonHuman Rights Project
Where do you stop? Insects? Bacteria? Viruses?
In these times, what about an AI?
The project's website[0] addresses your question and explains which species they focus on, and why. I suggest reading it if you are genuinely curious.
[0] https://www.nonhumanrights.org/about-us/
All it has is a bunch of fluff about wanting non-humans to have rights, which I vehemently disagree with.
Why do you disagree with the basic premise, can you elaborate?
In my opinion, anything sentient should be guaranteed basic rights. Including AI.
[dead]
LAWYER: Let me address... the elephant in the room.
EVERYONE IN THE GALLERY TURNS QUICKLY TO FACE THE BACK OF THE COURT. THERE STANDS AN ELEPHANT WEARING A TRENCHCOAT AND CARRYING A BRIEFCASE, READY TO GIVE HIS DEPOSITION.
That's not an elephant, that's my wife.