Johnny Mayberry

I'm going with the obvious. The fact that we are having a conversation with them should be enough.

Thalia

Although I consider the arguments about evolution or health to be irrelevent to the ethical issue, I think it is important to remember that our ancestors evolved to be the best at their lifestyles which was reproducing young and passing on those genes (and most likely dying young by our standards). We now expect to live waaaaay past our reproductive years and live very differently from our ancestors, long enough to develop things like cancer and diabetes, and heart disease. What is best for us now and our lifestyles, I don't know. It's OT imo; people can go read the epidemiological data and speculate.

chuck norris

I expected to find some more interesting responses to the experiment here, but most of it just seems like the usual vegetarian vs non vegetarian thread. I am vegan and have seen lots of these . They just boring, repetitive and meaningless. My personal reason for being vegetarian is that I dont think its right to confine animals. Be it for petting, eating or whatever reason. So hunting, fishing whatever is perfectly fine by me. I just dont do it or eat it. But thats not what we want to discuss.

On the experiment, I dont really have any good answer, as you would expect from a vegetarian. However, the part that I think we should pay more attention to is the one that states that they are much more evolved than us, or at least that is what they believe. Therefore, separated from us. Simply saying "we are conscious" means nothing, since we cant prove wheter animals are conscious. No one can say that with scientifical certainty.

We consider ourselves superior to animals. ACs consider theirselves superior to us, and animals. They might be able to look at us and feel love for us, as we can for animals. But that wont stop them from doing to us what we do to animals.

So what if we can communicate with them? It doesnt help unless it isnt hypocritical. Explaining them that we are superior to animals doesnt mean anything to them. They are superior to us, so why not treat us as we treat animals?

Loren Pechel wrote:
What about slavery? Do you think the slaves accepted it? I dont think so. They could try fighting, as some did, but they didnt have the technology and it didnt do a whole lot. They had to wait until some people who thought the slaves didnt deserve that kind of treatment managed to make a difference.

So, then, we would be slaved by ACs until a some of them managed to make a difference and help us, and that is what I believe the objective of the experiment to be. A simple defense for vegetarian thinking rather than an attack on non vegetarians, as various vegetarians do so often.

Fred

If the aliens have ways of learning of our past we would then be in trouble. Just a casual glance at 20th century history would show that we have actually done the same thing to humans. How then could we justify our arguments against ? One look at eugenics and The final solution and that would be it, not to mention slavery and any history of cannibalism.

thedigiMESS

I find it interesting, though ultimately completely unimportant, that some of the conclusions implicit in the Alpha Centauri thought experiment are decidedly anti-vegan. The Alpha Centaurians are offered as uber-hominids, capable of extraordinary intellectual feats, “they never forget anything and can mentally beat our computers in calculating figures.” Yet these beings who are “vastly more powerful” than us “puny earthlings” can’t resist wandering around the galaxy looking for something good to eat. (Funny also that these walking “computers” couldn’t crunch the numbers quick enough to avoid overpopulation.)

Vegetarians and vegans insist that meat eating is no longer necessary in light of all of the vitamins and supplements now available, yet here we are presented with the Alpha Centaurians, whose technology, by all accounts, must certainly far surpass our own yet they seem not to have kicked the craving for a protein packed McHuman Happy Meal. This is a pretty strong endorsement for the appeal of meat eating from a rather unlikely source.

What’s more is that these superior aliens who have “despoiled their planet” to the extent that there is no other animal life left other than themselves don’t seem to miss the diversification of species too much. It doesn’t appear as if they are after animal companions or too terribly moved by the beauty of nature. No, when they find new life forms they are thinking about eating them, harvesting them and hunting them.

Some conclusions that can be drawn from this thought experiment, cleverly crafted by the vegans, are that no amount of technology or sophistication can ever replace the desire to eat meat and that the exploitation of lower animals by higher animals is universal and should be expected.

Given what we know about the Alpha Centaurians, I wonder what hope the vegans can possibly hold out for us “puny earthlings”?

-thedigiMESS

Thalia

I think you make a good critique of the unnecessary details of the thought experiment, but as you say, they are "ultimately completely unimportant".

Although the AC's live by "might makes right" and have a taste for meat, they are fictional characters. I am not sure that you are concluding that, "no amount of technology or sophistication can ever replace the desire to eat meat and that the exploitation of lower animals by higher animals is universal and should be expected," is a subconscious expectation of the people who devised the question, or is something you can conclude about our situation based on the characteristics of the fictional characters. I am also wondering if you purposely chose the phrase, "to be expected," as opposed to "to be accepted."

Perhaps it should be simply stated as, AC's come to our planet, want to (exploit) us for (some purpose that is ultimately unecessary to them). Some idealist AC's protest the plan, crying out for "homosapian rights activists" (HRA's) the majority answer-

"but they taste good, we've been eating other animals for ages, they aren't as smart as us, they cannot communicate telepathically, their lifestyles are incredibly crude and meaningless, in fact, they probably don't even feel or have emotions- if they do, they are not as complex as ours. They make these gibberish noises not nearly as complex as our communicatoin. Those reactions you call "pain" are probably just reflexes, or at least, even if they can feel pain, they don't have as complex and fulfilling of lives as us. Our desires matter more."

The HRA's balk at all of this of course, and the majority reply, "But they do it to other animals, even to themselves. So why shouldn't we? If you can come up with a reason why what they do to others is different from what we want to do, we will not (eat, enslave, etc.) them.

How should the HRA's reply?

thedigiMESS

Thalia wrote:
“Although the AC's live by ‘might makes right’…”

This is slightly off topic, but this inspired a thought that I would like to explore for a quick second. “Might makes right” is typically used pejoratively (as I think was the case here) as an indictment on those in a position to exercise their power over others. This view reflects a bias on the part of the observer that is sympathetic with the subordinates and hostile towards those in power (or with power).

The problem is that “might makes right” is actually self evident, but the negative connotations unduly libel those in positions of power. Any culture or species or individual that is significantly superior to another will ultimately bear the burden of making decisions that inescapably impact both sides. Just as the lion alone, and not the antelope, may decide whether or not the antelope will be eaten, so it is that the Alpha Centaurians are the only ones who may decide the fate of the humans.

To be clear, what one does with their power is open to discussion and criticism. As a human I would be happier co-existing with the aliens than being eaten by them, but the fact that the aliens are in the position of power, by virtue of their technological and intellectual superiority, is a simple matter of fact and beyond reproach.

On the other hand, I may be spouting off a bunch of bullshit just to hear myself speak. Morals and ethics are subjective (I suppose?) and the fact that the stronger force may impose its will on the weaker force does not guarantee the stronger force impunity from making bad decisions. In short, might does not make right. Or said another way, and with a tinge of sarcasm, “might is right.”

What a waste; a garrulous treatise that ultimately says nothing. Sorry I brought it up.

Thalia wrote:
“I am also wondering if you purposely chose the phrase, ‘to be expected,’ as opposed to ‘to be accepted.’”

I did purposely choose it. I was taking the position that the Alpha Centaurians had been offered as the very height of evolution, supremely gifted and technologically advanced. If there was any hope that man, or any species, could transcend their carnal desires then certainly we would see it in the Alpha Centaurians, but alas, these ethereal beings were just as enamored of red meat and big game as the rest of us. I took this as an endorsement of the idea that dominion over subordinates is universal and should therefore be expected… in which case, I suppose, it may as well also be accepted.

Thalia wrote:
“How should the HRA's [Homosapien Rights Activists] reply?”

I would be happy if the HRA’s could simply convince the majority of Alpha Centaurians to treat us exactly as we treat the animals on our own planet. This would spare us the kind of exploitation that, as you say “is ultimately unnecessary to them,” for starters.

It is presumed in the original thought experiment, and also in yours (if we are to accept the analogy between the Centaurians and present day humans suggested by both exercises) that humans are much more careless and blasé about the exploitation of non-human life than actually we deserve credit for.

In reality we make every effort to identify sentient creatures (or those creatures who appear to be approaching some kind of sentience) and make very clear distinctions between the different kinds of uses that we will allow for different kinds of animals. We do not harvest primates, whales or dolphins for food, for instance, and I would not expect to be harvested for food by the Alpha Centaurians.

Thalia wrote:
“They probably don't even feel or have emotions- if they do, they are not as complex as ours. They make these gibberish noises not nearly as complex as our communication. Those reactions you call ‘pain’ are probably just reflexes, or at least, even if they can feel pain, they don't have as complex and fulfilling of lives as us.”

Bear in mind that the Alpha Centaurians have been offered as a species of hominid vastly superior in intellect to humans. If chimps or dolphins were attempting to communicate with humans I am sure that we would recognize it. The entire thought experiment would be suspect if it weren’t all but certain that the Alpha Centaurians would recognize the humans as intelligent, communicative beings, no matter how inferior we were to the aliens.

Thalia wrote:
“Our desires matter more."

This quote was attributed to the Alpha Centaurians and I could not agree with it more. Humans do experiment on primates, and as such I would expect the Alpha Centaurians to put their needs ahead of the needs of humans and subject us to research of their own. But, even so, keep in mind that I am still advocating treatment of humans that is equal to the treatment meted out by humans. Experimentation on primates is reserved only for research deemed absolutely necessary and conducted only after meeting many stringent standards for approval.

Great efforts are made to protect higher animals and when human needs are deemed to supersede the needs of subordinate animals the resulting procedures are carried out according to strict protocols. The human attitude towards animal research does not match the malevolent caricature of humans portrayed in the thought experiments.

As a subordinate species to the Alpha Centaurians I would ACCEPT that their needs necessarily supersede our own needs and accept whatever consequences come with that, but I would EXPECT that as intelligent hominids the Alpha Centaurians would not take a wanton attitude toward the fate and suffering of all subordinate species.

In short I expect no more or less than what I expect from humans.

-thedigiMESS

Calzaer

We don't know, because they won't speak English and tell us.

Fred

This is simply an opinion and should be treated as such.

I think that humans don't give animals enough credit. I grew up amongst a great many animals, for instance I had 44 dogs, and I think animals are very inteligent. I have seen animals take revenge, such as a cat relieving itself on a pillow belonging to somebody who had ill treated it. I have also seen a goat that really had it in for a farm hand attack him at every opportunity.
If an animal is smart enough to take revenge it must have some way of thinking about it. Obviously they don't share the kind of inteligence that humans possess but this is not to say they cannot think.
IMHO

Pyrrho

I did not respond to any of the posts for several days, as I wanted to see how it would develop without me posting any responses. However, I will now respond to at least some of the posts (time may prevent me from responding to everyone).

If I don't get around to saying anything specifically about your post, you might find this interesting, which is from a different web site:

http://ar.vegnews.org/

It deals with many of the issues that people commonly bring up in connection with these matters, in a very easy to use question and answer format.

And I am not saying that I agree with everything stated at that web site; I am merely saying that it makes many interesting points.



So, being self-aware is where you draw the line? If so, certain non-human animals appear to be self-aware, so I suppose you believe we should not eat them, or use them in the other ways listed above? For more on this idea, see:

http://ar.vegnews.org/self_aware.html

Furthermore, if being self-aware is what matters, then you must believe it is okay to eat severely mentally retarded people, as well as small children. Of course, using them for medical experiments would be more practical, so you may regard that as the right use.

If you object to such use for small children and the severely retarded, then being self-aware is not the criterion that you actually use.

What I am interested in is people being consistent. Do you regard it as okay to use small children and mentally retarded people for food, medical experiments, etc.?



Presumably, we more closely resemble the aliens than cows, etc., so we may be the best candidates for painful medical experiments. Furthermore, given how many of us there are, there are more of us to eat than many other species. They may eat the other animals, too, just like we (as a species) don't limit ourselves to only one kind of meat.



To see the problem with that, imagine yourself as being chosen for that group. And, of course, good hunting requires that the animal be in its 'natural' habitat, so they'll still need to be doing that with the rest of us anyway. After all, there are people starving in the world, so they will need to issue a lot of hunting licenses to 'cull the herd'.