The life of the animals

[Curious Seed]

Originally Posted by SilverLight

I am anti sharkfinning and also against the abuse of any and all animals.
I just want to see how others feel about it all.
Feel free to share what you want and if anyone wants to pm me go ahead.

Such a pleasure to see your expression of love for animals.

Many "theologians" on this Forum pride themselves on using fancy terms and "authoritative" reasoning to demonstrate how they, the humans, differ from them, the animals, and how that difference justifies their organizing to manipulate and consume them.

I like the sweet, simple words of Leonardo da Vinci: We are only as civilized, as we respect the weakest among us - embryos and animals.

[AHapka]

Originally Posted by King Lazy

I think animal lovers can take heart in the fact that final Heaven, the New Earth, is not only spiritual but also material, and that there is every possibility that purely material beings, such as animals, may indeed be there with us.

I sure do hope so, especially considering that when God made them they were good. And Heaven is all about good things.

[severus68]

Originally Posted by Curious Seed

Such a pleasure to see your expression of love for animals.

Many "theologians" on this Forum pride themselves on using fancy terms and "authoritative" reasoning to demonstrate how they, the humans, differ from them, the animals, and how that difference justifies their organizing to manipulate and consume them.

I like the sweet, simple words of Leonardo da Vinci: We are only as civilized, as we respect the weakest among us - embryos and animals.

[kama3]

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

I have no problem violating the will or the desires of an animal. Last I heard, creatures exist for our sake. This concept of animal "rights" is a new one to me. Where do their rights come from anyway?

Do police dogs move freely and lie down when they want, or do they obey?

You've never seen a lab rat trying to run away from your syringe, obviously. So even if indeed God made them for our sake, my lab rats apparently didn't get the memo.

I can tell you from personal experience that rats (which are relatively primitive animals) surely do experience fear and pain. (In fact, fear and pain levels in animals are measurable by measuring levels of certain hormones and neurotransmitters). I'm also reasonably certain that more developed animals (such as dogs) are capable of higher feelings such as love and compassion. See e.g.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And don't even get me started on monkeys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOH...eature=related

So -- I find these claims of human exceptionality greatly exaggerated.

[kama3]

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

Worse, if a puppy or a horse dies in a movie, the audience freaks out and cries like babies. But if a person gets killed in a movie, there's hardly an emotional response from the audience. Our sympathies are invested entirely in the wrong place.

Nah, it's simply the way the movie makers manipulate audience's emotions.

If an animal dies in the movie, it usually dies near the end, after the audience has established an emotional bond with it. Also, there are usually multiple scenes which are there to make the audience associate with the animal.

Most humans which die in the movies are enemies of the protagonist (hence, the audience is already primed negatively against them) and appear on the screen a short while before the protagonist kills them -- hence, audience has no time to start liking them. (Think Rambo).

[Della]

Originally Posted by kama3

You've never seen a lab rat trying to run away from your syringe, obviously. So even if indeed God made them for our sake, my lab rats apparently didn't get the memo.

I can tell you from personal experience that rats (which are relatively primitive animals) surely do experience fear and pain. (In fact, fear and pain levels in animals are measurable by measuring levels of certain hormones and neurotransmitters). I'm also reasonably certain that more developed animals (such as dogs) are capable of higher feelings such as love and compassion. See e.g.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And don't even get me started on monkeys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOH...eature=related

So -- I find these claims of human exceptionality greatly exaggerated.

Human exceptionality is not our doing, so we can take no credit for it.

I totally agree that animals experience fear and pain--all the more reason to treat them humanely and not cause them undo suffering. When we had to have some of our ill cats put down it was very hard for us to do, but we had to think of what was best for them, not that we wanted to keep them with us. They cannot understand why they suffer nor do they have any conception of the sufferings of their species or of others, although they can show affection towards others who suffer. Their intelligence is limited, but they certainly have feelings, which we must respect and take into account when dealing with them. They are our responsiblity and our heritage, so we have to do all we can to ensure they aren't abused or misused.

[Rainaldo]

Originally Posted by kama3

You've never seen a lab rat trying to run away from your syringe, obviously. So even if indeed God made them for our sake, my lab rats apparently didn't get the memo.

I can tell you from personal experience that rats (which are relatively primitive animals) surely do experience fear and pain. (In fact, fear and pain levels in animals are measurable by measuring levels of certain hormones and neurotransmitters). I'm also reasonably certain that more developed animals (such as dogs) are capable of higher feelings such as love and compassion. See e.g.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And don't even get me started on monkeys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOH...eature=related

So -- I find these claims of human exceptionality greatly exaggerated.

Hard for me to see this extended to bacteria and viruses. Don't they have a right to life? Or do only cute animals have it? Because it sounds like your argument rests on your own warm fuzzy feelings towards them as a basis for determining the place of animals in the natural order. But maybe you don't believe in Genesis chapters 1-4 & 9.

By the way, I am mystified by your description of rats as being "relatively primitive". I find bacteria just as complicated as any other living thing including rats.

[kama3]

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

Hard for me to see this extended to bacteria and viruses.

It does not extend. Bacteria do not have a central nervous system and do not exhibit any cognitive processes.

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

Don't they have a right to life? Or do only cute animals have it?

Cuteness has nothing to do with it. Most people do not find rats cute

The consensus among bioethicists seems to be that the defining characteristic is cognitive abilities. For example, we have cephalopods, which, despite being invertebrates, are remarkably intelligent. So much, that bioethicists put them in one category with dogs etc. as far as experimental use is concerned:

In some countries, octopuses are on the list of experimental animals on which surgery may not be performed without anesthesia. In the UK, cephalopods such as octopuses are regarded as honorary vertebrates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and other cruelty to animals legislation, extending to them protections not normally afforded to invertebrates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

By the way, I am mystified by your description of rats as being "relatively primitive". I find bacteria just as complicated as any other living thing including rats.

Errr... have a look at a biology textbook. Bacteria are extremely simple organisms.

The rat brain is relatively primitive compared to other mammals, such as dogs or pigs, not to mention monkeys and humans. Nevertheless, despite having a relatively primitive brain, rats are clearly capable of at least some some feelings we humans posess. Generally, it seems to be a pattern that the more advanced brain an animal has, the more capable of feelings it is.

Here's some food for thought. Imagine that you have a chimp and an intellectually underdeveloped human -- so that their intellectual capabilities are exactly the same. Should they be treated differently and why (not)?

[kama3]

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

But maybe you don't believe in Genesis chapters 1-4 & 9.

Why should my ethical system be based on biological knowledge as of 1500 BC and not as of 2012 AD?

[Rainaldo]

Originally Posted by kama3

It does not extend. Bacteria do not have a central nervous system and do not exhibit any cognitive processes. ... The consensus among bioethicists seems to be that the defining characteristic is cognitive abilities. ... Errr... have a look at a biology textbook. Bacteria are extremely simple organisms. ... Here's some food for thought. Imagine that you have a chimp and an intellectually underdeveloped human -- so that their intellectual capabilities are exactly the same. Should they be treated differently and why (not)?

So something has a right to life if it exhibits behavior which we interpret as apprehension, fear, pain, love, compassion, and cognitive abilities, and has a central nervous system ? Now I know what you think of fetuses :-(

Bacteria are not simple. Biology textbooks label them simple because evolutionary theory needs them to be simple so that they fit the theory, not because they are biochemically uncomplicated.

The human has human rights; the chimp does not, because it is not human; it is not in the image of God and its place in the natural order is that it was created for our good, not for its own sake like we were. Chimps do not sin; they cannot be baptized; they do not go to heaven. "Both their life and their death are subject to our use", as Augustine says; Jesus came down from heaven for us men and for our salvation, not for animals or for their salvation; we are not obliged to love them as ourselves because they are not our neighbors, because they are not capable of the Beatific Vision.

[Rainaldo]

Originally Posted by kama3

Why should my ethical system be based on biological knowledge as of 1500 BC and not as of 2012 AD?

Because your biological knowledge will be outdated in 2013, and you totally missed my point, because my citation had nothing to do with biological knowledge as of 1500 BC.

[kama3]

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

Bacteria are not simple. Biology textbooks label them simple because evolutionary theory needs them to be simple so that they fit the theory, not because they are biochemically uncomplicated.

Are you suggesting that human is less complicated than a bacterium? By what metric?

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

The human has human rights; the chimp does not, because it is not human;

What, exactly, makes human a human?

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

it is not in the image of God and its place in the natural order is that it was created for our good, not for its own sake like we were.

1. If so, why do chimps do just fine in the forest without any human around?

2. What can a human use a chimp for? (I know precisely one practical use of chimps, and it's becoming increasingly illegal for ethical reasons).

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

Chimps do not sin;

Chimp bites, but feels remorse

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

[non-humans] are not capable of the Beatific Vision.

The deceased appear to have been intentionally buried, with each Neanderthal's arms folded such that the hands were close to the head. Remains of other Neanderthals have been found in this position, suggesting that it held meaning.

http://news.discovery.com/history/ne...fe-110420.html

Although Neanderthals had occasionally practiced burial of the dead, it was among the Cro-Magnon where evidence emerged of the elaborate burial, with hints of ritual and belief in an afterlife. At one burial site, the deceased was dressed in clothing on which more than three thousand ivory beads were sewn. Carved pendants, bracelets, and shell necklaces boggled the imagination. These elaborate internments are only the most dramatic example of many.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1015doser3.shtml

Ritual or symbolic behavior is generally taken as a sign of cognitive levels comparable to those of modern humans by palaeoanthropologists studying ancient human populations. The earliest signs of this are often taken as the use of red ochre by Neanderthals in Europe and Archaic modern humans in Africa, but some specialists regard this as slightly suspect, since red ochre does have non-ritual applications.

More generally accepted as evidence of such behavior is the use of shell beads as ornamentation, which appears at a number of sites in Africa and the Middle East from about 100 thousand years ago onwards.

In a paper published in the journal PLoS ONE on 5 March 2012, Eugène Morin of the Department of Anthropology at Trent University and Véronique Laroulandie of Université Bordeaux report the discover of the claws of raptors (birds of prey) apparently modified for use as jewelry at a number of Neanderthal burial sites in France and Italy, dating to between 90 000 and 40 000 years ago.

http://sciencythoughts.blogspot.com/...-claws-by.html