Notices
Results 1 to 67 of 67
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By NNet
  • 1 Post By Pong

Thread: Crueltry - A product of Evolution?

  1. #1 Crueltry - A product of Evolution? 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    It would seem to be one of evolutions most cruelest jokes that carnivores need to kill to survive. Nature has long since proved that even some the most complex animals can comfortably survive on a herbivores diet. Some have argued that there has always been an evolutionary need for the competition for survival that the food chain offers, but I reject this notion, evolution could have quite successfully created the necessary competition element through an extension of the competition which already exists within different herbivore species forced to compete for the same food sources. In this way evolution could still move forward and the evolutionary war of species development and advancement between prey and predator could have been an advancement war of one species of herbivore over another to gain an evolutionary advantage to make them more successful at acquiring the food resources.

    In the one sense the idea of cruelty and by extension morality is a human concept for dealing with human interations and relationships but in another sense it is also a way in which we can express a rationalised emotion towards particular actions. Now if we could say that evolution and thus the eventual actions of predators could rationalised as something seperate and distict from humanity I would probarbly agree that would be no place for a concept of morality and we could thus find another way to express what as a purely human emotion would seem like cruelty.

    But that is to dismiss the human element from the equation, it is to somehow set us apart from the evolutionary process and indeed the fight for survival which exists within nature. We as a species are by nature omnivores, which means nature has given us the ability to survive without the necessity to eat meat or to kill. Yet most of us who would not consider themselves cruel still eat meat. Mostly we don't think about the death of the animal involved that provided our steaks or sausages, yet animals are still killed so that we may eat them. So how do we reconcile this with our apparent lack of cruelty to animals in general?

    I think if we can't rationalise it as our own inherent cruelty then we can only attribute this desire for meat to evolution to the fact that we evolved with the ability and desire for meat and the need for the deaths of other animals. But even this does not reconcile the simple idea that the deaths of animals that exist within nature might have simply not been necessary if evolution had been different and even if we do eventually discover some need for this particular fasset of evolution again we can ask why would and should such a fasset come about that results in such brutality and suffering within the animal kingdom.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Hey, it's not our fault. Don't beat us up over it...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    It would seem to be one of evolutions most cruelest jokes that carnivores need to kill to survive. Nature has long since proved that even some the most complex animals can comfortably survive on a herbivores diet. Some have argued that there has always been an evolutionary need for the competition for survival that the food chain offers, but I reject this notion, evolution could have quite successfully created the necessary competition element through an extension of the competition which already exists within different herbivore species forced to compete for the same food sources.
    There seem to be two fallacies here. The idea that carnivorism(? carnivority?) is "cruel" is a purely social construct. Only a proportion of humans have a problem with it.

    Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that evolution"chose" or designed" the system. If there is an unexploited resource (animals) then something is going to exploit it, pretty inevitably.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    There seem to be two fallacies here. The idea that carnivorism(? carnivority?) is "cruel" is a purely social construct. Only a proportion of humans have a problem with it.
    But ok we might as a species be ok with it but we don't and wouldn't treat human's in the same way or even or types of species such as cats or dogs for example, we are opperating a double standard here because we are used to eating meat and we enjoy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that evolution"chose" or designed" the system. If there is an unexploited resource (animals) then something is going to exploit it, pretty inevitably.
    But again the evolutionary system evolved to allow for such crueltry to exist, it didn't necessarily have be that way but yet it is, so I brand it cruel.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If you don't like the cruelty of abattoir processing of meat, you can always raise your own chooks and rabbits (or larger livestock if you had the space and the facilities), or learn to shoot your own game dead with a single shot. And modern abattoirs are pretty good at the process of killing itself. Very often the cruelty is not in the animal's death at all, but in its horrible life and crowded, frightening, noisy, traumatic transport to be killed. Even then, a lot of cattle farmers are coming to realise that they can get a better price for the meat from unstressed animals, so they are getting control of how animals are transported as well.

    Killing and butchering your own meat does not need to involve any cruelty at all. You just need the skills and the capacity to feed and maintain healthy animals and to kill them without them ever realising what's happened.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I think that the meat eating aspect of nature is part of a mechanism which ensures that the healthiest survive and the weakest do not get to. That way, the environment doesn't get over populated and life can go on eternally.

    It's such an effective mechanism, so intelligent, thats it's hard for me to percieve how this could come about or be in force by pure chance.

    Nature really is just a multitude of habits... how those habits could develope in such a far sighted way as to be able to maintain an equilibrium... is quite amazing.

    The cruel thing, as well as the thing which is a complete perversion of the habits of nature, is farming animals on large scales just for killing and eating. This is not in line with natures enigmatic mechanisms of equilibrium. It not only produces an over abundance of the brain dead domesticated prey species, it also causes an over abundance of brain dead domesticated human beings.

    But such is our ability to create new habits in our evolution... it's just a shame we'r not even as far sighted as a multitude of random chances occurances eh? Random chance, we are told, developed this deeply complex self perpetuating set of harmonious symbiotic habits that we call nature, we Humans who think we are so clever, do not even have the forsight of a mindless series of random chance occurances!

    Thats so funny... Kinda ironic though don't you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think that the meat eating aspect of nature is part of a mechanism which ensures that the healthiest survive and the weakest do not get to.
    How does it do that?

    That way, the environment doesn't get over populated and life can go on eternally.
    Eternally?

    Random chance, we are told, developed this deeply complex self perpetuating set of harmonious symbiotic habits that we call nature, we Humans who think we are so clever, do not even have the forsight of a mindless series of random chance occurances!
    Try reading a book. "Random chance" is not how it happened.]
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think that the meat eating aspect of nature is part of a mechanism which ensures that the healthiest survive and the weakest do not get to.
    How does it do that?
    Are you serious? you post sarcy arrogant comment after sarcy arrogant comment and you want me to answer a question for you?

    Ok, I will do. When an animal becomes weak or injured, it is no longer able to avoid and escape the predators... so it gets eaten.
    If a young doesn't develop properly and healthily, then it will be eaten. If an animal is a bit slow in the head, then it will not have the wits to avoid hunters, it will be eaten.

    This can be refered to as 'The Survival of the Fittest', for that is exactly what it is.

    Do you have any book in mind mr wise man or should I just close my eyes, walk down the isle and reach for a book when I get a psychic impulse???

    I don't think random chance did it anyway, but I did think random chance was thought to be a major factor by many people, is that wrong? perhaps you want to explain yourself a little?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If you don't like the cruelty of abattoir processing of meat, you can always raise your own chooks and rabbits (or larger livestock if you had the space and the facilities), or learn to shoot your own game dead with a single shot. And modern abattoirs are pretty good at the process of killing itself. Very often the cruelty is not in the animal's death at all, but in its horrible life and crowded, frightening, noisy, traumatic transport to be killed. Even then, a lot of cattle farmers are coming to realise that they can get a better price for the meat from unstressed animals, so they are getting control of how animals are transported as well.

    Killing and butchering your own meat does not need to involve any cruelty at all. You just need the skills and the capacity to feed and maintain healthy animals and to kill them without them ever realising what's happened.
    Perhaps it's a good thing that we've got killing down to such a fine art within our food chain so as to be able to kill animals in a humane way, but really that by itself doesn't really address the real issue of the actual killing of animals for our usage. As a product of evolution ourselves I guess we can adopt the pov that we are just following our own nature when we kill animals for, or even just by eating them for food. But from a different perspective we could also say that we set ourselves apart and above the other species within the animal kingdom and as such this gives a greater responsibility towards the rest of them, even perhaps that we are truely the only species that can really choose what it is that we do eat and that perhaps if we are to truely look at ourselves then we can conclude that perhaps, when it comes to killing, that we as the dominant species should know better.

    Maybe though it could also be the case that we arn't yet ready to take on such a mantle, that as yet we still kill our own kind and are slowly destroying own enviroment, but perhaps in time we might be ready to accept our responsibilites to other species and may longer consider it acceptable to exploit them as a food source.

    Perhaps it is also another fasset of man to be able to rationalise hypocracy, because I also, like the next person still enjoy a steak, sausage or bacon sandwich if albeit with a slight tinge of guilt attached.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Are you serious? you post sarcy arrogant comment after sarcy arrogant comment and you want me to answer a question for you?

    Ok, I will do. When an animal becomes weak or injured, it is no longer able to avoid and escape the predators... so it gets eaten.
    If a young doesn't develop properly and healthily, then it will be eaten. If an animal is a bit slow in the head, then it will not have the wits to avoid hunters, it will be eaten.
    Ah, so you meant that it's "part of a mechanism which ensures that the healthiest survive and the weakest do not get to" for the animals we eat, not us.
    Perhaps you could try to be clearer next time.

    Do you have any book in mind mr wise man or should I just close my eyes, walk down the isle and reach for a book when I get a psychic impulse???
    Anything by Gould and his like.

    I don't think random chance did it anyway, but I did think random chance was thought to be a major factor by many people, is that wrong? perhaps you want to explain yourself a little?
    Yet you still say it happened by "random chance" and continue from that premise for the rest of your sentence -as if it were YOUR position..
    Maybe you could, in future, stick to what you know as opposed to spouting nonsense that you think is "thought to be a major factor by many people".
    Espousing, or repeating, something that you think is other peoples' opinions isn't going to help us establish what your position is, is it?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    In the one sense the idea of cruelty and by extension morality is a human concept for dealing with human interations and relationships but in another sense it is also a way in which we can express a rationalised emotion towards particular actions. Now if we could say that evolution and thus the eventual actions of predators could rationalised as something seperate and distict from humanity I would probarbly agree that would be no place for a concept of morality and we could thus find another way to express what as a purely human emotion would seem like cruelty.
    When someone has not loved or cannot feel they are loved or even cannot express love they could be the ones who treat other cruely and without empathy. When children are not taught what love is they sometimes grow into cruel people or if they are bullied allot they can turn into cruel people by taking their angst out on anuimals that cannot defend themselves.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    There seem to be two fallacies here. The idea that carnivorism(? carnivority?) is "cruel" is a purely social construct. Only a proportion of humans have a problem with it.
    But ok we might as a species be ok with it but we don't and wouldn't treat human's in the same way or even or types of species such as cats or dogs for example, we are opperating a double standard here because we are used to eating meat and we enjoy it.
    I was hear in tv the following: the lion's prey don't suffer too much, because evolution turned them into asphyxier specialists, they first asphyx slowly, once prey is dead (they knows it because perceive the breath), they start to eat. The lips of lion pressures the neck in a peculiar way that obstruct the air of its prey achieving a numbing sedative effect. That slow numbing effect help predator to avoid flesh movements around canines, avoid hits, wounds, from the prey. I think that the meat eating aspect of nature ensures that the healthiest survive and the weakest do not get to.

    However we belong to a different category, we are moral beings, can see our atavisms, our own nature reflected in the inferior species. Our measure of justice evolves uninterruptedly. Lions have no other choice than remain prisoners of the food chain.

    We wouldn't treat cats (pet not smarter & sensitive than: a rabbit, a squirrel) or dogs (pet not smarter & sensitive than: a suckling pig, a deer, a kangoroo) or mathematician parrots (pet similar to chicken) in the same way. We are opperating a double standard here because we are used to eating meat and we enjoy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    All living things die sooner or later. The act of killing an animal is not as great a sin as some perceive. Killing a human is different for emotional reasons (anyone not a psychopath will feel serious guilt), and for reasons of rationalised morality related to the value we put on a human life.

    I have killed animals, many times. I live in an area where there are wild pests, and I trap and kill them. I feel no guilt, and nor should I. Those pests, left to live, will prey on and kill wild animals that are part of shrinking and endangered populations.

    Nor do I feel that killing a cow for meat is a sin. It lives a pretty good life, protected by the farmer and given good food and water, and even veterinary attention when required. When it is killed, it is done humanely. After all, we know that stressing a cow before it is killed results in tough beef, and that costs big money to the company that runs the abattoir.

    On the other hand, a wild cow lives with every day terror, from predators, and will (on average) live less than a year, and will probably die in terror and agony under the claws and teeth of a predator. Our meat cows have it good by comparison.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I have killed animals, many times. I live in an area where there are wild pests, and I trap and kill them. I feel no guilt, and nor should I. Those pests, left to live, will prey on and kill wild animals that are part of shrinking and endangered populations.
    "Pests" is a relative measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Nor do I feel that killing a cow for meat is a sin. It lives a pretty good life, protected by the farmer and given good food and water, and even veterinary attention when required.
    I think you may not know much about the beef industry... 'Veterinary attention' essentially boils down to dealing with weeping sores and injecting more anti-biotics that are increasing in ineffectiveness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I think you may not know much about the beef industry... 'Veterinary attention' essentially boils down to dealing with weeping sores and injecting more anti-biotics that are increasing in ineffectiveness.
    I was raised on a farm, admittedly in New Zealand where cattle are free ranged. But if 'weeping sores' are the problem, then the cow getting antibiotics is being well treated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I was raised on a farm, admittedly in New Zealand where cattle are free ranged. But if 'weeping sores' are the problem, then the cow getting antibiotics is being well treated.
    I think I wasn't very clear...
    This is where law, science and freaking common sense all collide. The law says they have to be given anti-biotics. The problem is that the way they are used and the fact that the legalities muddle it, this leaves stronger and stronger bacteria being left behind, resistant strains that result in the cows literally being pumped full of anti-biotics to no avail.
    You'll literally see the cow walking around with huge lumps all over its body, filled with pus, but aside from following the legality, they don't pay it much mind since they know it's going to be be brainstabbed, chopped up and eaten.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Neverfly

    I cannot comment on your country, but here in NZ, if a farmer treated his cattle that badly, he would be prosecuted. Every year, some are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Neverfly

    I cannot comment on your country, but here in NZ, if a farmer treated his cattle that badly, he would be prosecuted. Every year, some are.
    Yeah- valid. Maybe we could learn something from you guys.
    In fairness, I'm sure not all beef farmers are cruel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    "Pests" is a relative measure.
    'Pests' are a pretty touchy subject with Aussies and NZers. Our isolated and unique flora and fauna have suffered massive damage and more than a few extinctions from introduced plants and animals. On top of the usual human killing of native animals, that is. America's history with bison and passenger pigeons has been repeated here, especially with thylacine and several other island species. Our animals had no continental refuges to retreat to as bison were able to do to keep a few hardy specimens alive for reintroduction.

    But most of our losses have been to invasive pests. Rabbits, foxes and cane toads all the way up to buffalo in Australia. Rats, possums and sundry others in NZ (at least they were spared camels). When they kill animals and especially the young as rats and foxes do, they destroy the habitat as rabbits and the hard hoofed animals do in Australia and displace the natives as possums do in NZ, they make it nearly impossible to reintroduce or to maintain remnant populations of native species.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Correrction recieved- I keep forgetting that Skeptic is not a U.S. poster- I don't know why...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    I think one of the idea's I was trying explore with this is this concept that we do and accept things, that in other circumstances would be considered cruel, because nature/evolution has allowed us to evolve in a way that it seems natural. If indeed it is really the case and what is natural is actually correct then could we perhaps ask is their something wrong with or gone awry with our pschology towards others that we do see as cruel? It seems kind of odd that the two states of thought can exist side by side, that it is somehow acceptable to use one set of animals for our own cruel purposes whilsth at the same time feeling sympathy and compassion for another.

    It's this ability to hold these differing views that can also be seen in other aspects of our psychology towards the world in general that also be seen in examples from history, perhaps the most famous being of how Nazi concentration camp guards were able to rationalise what they doing without sympathy or compassion for their victims.

    But the particularly interesting aspect to this particular fasset is that it's not just restricted to our own species, examples of this can be seen in nature where sometimes predator animals adopt and nuture orphaned offspring of their prey animals. So it does bring up some interesting questions about this within nature, and how and why did this evolutionary trait evolve to begin with.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I think one of the idea's I was trying explore with this is this concept that we do and accept things, that in other circumstances would be considered cruel, because nature/evolution has allowed us to evolve in a way that it seems natural. If indeed it is really the case and what is natural is actually correct then could we perhaps ask is their something wrong with or gone awry with our pschology towards others that we do see as cruel? It seems kind of odd that the two states of thought can exist side by side, that it is somehow acceptable to use one set of animals for our own cruel purposes whilsth at the same time feeling sympathy and compassion for another.
    Maybe it seems natural because it is natural. The concept of cruelty is just a human cultural idea. Cultures change.
    It's this ability to hold these differing views that can also be seen in other aspects of our psychology towards the world in general that also be seen in examples from history, perhaps the most famous being of how Nazi concentration camp guards were able to rationalise what they doing without sympathy or compassion for their victims.
    The Nazi concentration camp guards are just an extreme example of human behavior that is fairly common through history or even in other species. For example, wolves might kill other wolves from packs which compete for their territory.
    But the particularly interesting aspect to this particular fasset is that it's not just restricted to our own species, examples of this can be seen in nature where sometimes predator animals adopt and nuture orphaned offspring of their prey animals. So it does bring up some interesting questions about this within nature, and how and why did this evolutionary trait evolve to begin with.
    No it is not restricted to our species, but your example is not a very good one. The predators adopting prey species is not something that would normally occur in the wild. Humans put the captive animals in unusual situations where their instinctive behavior results in unusual outcomes. However, it is true that animals are "cruel" to some species but not others. Usually the species they are "cruel" toward are prey species or competitors. Species they are not "cruel" towards are beneficial or neutral. The evolutionary reasons are obvious.

    In the same way, humans might be kind toward dogs (helpful species) but cruel to rats, for example.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I have killed animals, many times. I live in an area where there are wild pests, and I trap and kill them. I feel no guilt, and nor should I. Those pests, left to live, will prey on and kill wild animals that are part of shrinking and endangered populations.
    Wild pests of New Zealand aren't foreign species? I'm not sure if kill pests is a normal 'sport' in unaltered ecosystems.

    Nor do I feel that killing a cow for meat is a sin. It lives a pretty good life, protected by the farmer and given good food and water, and even veterinary attention when required. When it is killed, it is done humanely. After all, we know that stressing a cow before it is killed results in tough beef, and that costs big money to the company that runs the abattoir.
    You forgot to describe how painless is the neck cutting process when comparing with lion's method.
    ....how less they are innoculated when comparing with non-heaped, traditional stockbreeding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Stanford Enciclopedia of Philosophy:
    The Moral Status of Animals
    About.com: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Psychology Today: Why Vegetarians Are More Intelligent than Meat Eaters?
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...nt-meat-eaters

    Help me understand:

    1į. The experts on animal cognition don't see any ethical dilemma with the non-vegetarian statu quo? Why non-veggie nutrition is less criminal than animal experimentation, pet abuse, etc? Morrissey - Everyday Is Like Sunday - YouTube
    2į. Enviromentalists don't see any economical dilemma with....
    3į. If evolutionists teachs the human brain increased its mass (the big leap on intelligence) since fire allowed meat consumption, why vegetarians shows higher IQs? Since intelligence = complexity, ergo, the more variety of animals and vegetables you eat the better your brain will develop?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To bezoar

    Cause and effect can be thoroughly mixed up. You need to ask the question : Are vegetarians more intelligent because they are vegetarian. Or are more intelligent people more likely to become vegetarian because they are more intelligent.

    I strongly suggest the latter. Intelligent people are generally more prepared to accept change, and to experiment. Going vegetarian is a change from the traditional diet, and is thus more likely to happen if the person is more intelligent and therefore more likely to make a change.

    There is absolutely no evidence, as far as I can see, that a vegetarian diet is more likely to make a person intelligent compared to an omnivorous diet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    You omited the ethical dilemma,
    And the complexity argument. For example, i doubt any person worried to increase his IQ (an astronaut, a chess player, a mathematician, etc) could maximize his intelligence following a vegetarian diet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    why vegetarians shows higher IQs?
    It would help if you'd actually read (and understood) your own link.
    That is NOT what it says, and it's NOT what it implies. (Apart from the highly misleading title).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Sounds cruel but, some hipothetical aliens obsessed with planetary colonization, knowing it requires an exceptional effort of their intelligences, could need to consume all type of animal specie (maximal explotation of animals), in order to optimize to the top their body/brain nutrition?

    Biochemically, as foods, meats are unique and irrepleaceable with all possible vegetal combitations ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Killing and butchering your own meat does not need to involve any cruelty at all. You just need the skills and the capacity to feed and maintain healthy animals and to kill them without them ever realising what's happened.
    Killing is always cruel, because you're removing their existence. I don't think they'd like that if they had the intelligence to understand that's what's happening, but I'm not sure if that is equivalent to cruelness. No matter what, raising animals is cruel. If they have a bad life, the bad life is cruel. If they have a good life, the killing is cruel because it is removing their positive life.
    Would you use meds to make the animal unconscious first, or quickly slit its throat? Slitting throats isn't very nice. Anaesthesia is expensive.
    Including myself, humans are hypocritical about harming animals. If we step on our dog, we get guilty and empathetic, as if we had stepped on a human. We don't have the same feelings for farm animals, at least when we kill them. We kill them by cutting them. I've never been wounded, so I have no idea how painful that must be. When I'm in the right mood, my attitude about killing is "But it'll be dead in a little, and then it's existence will be wipped from the universe. A shame, but there's nothing I can do about it." That's nihilistic (if I have the right definition).
    If we have this attitude towards animals, we make so many other topics pointless. We get so mad/empathetic when a terrorists kill 3,000 people. We give foodstamps to those who qualify. We spend thousands or millions of dollars (I think) to prosecute and imprision a murder, and prevent maybe 2 other murders. And then we slaughter over 8,000,000,000 animals a year, not including seafood, according to the USDA (Animals Killed for Food in the United States in 2000 (millions) note the note at the top.)
    If we say that animals don't have the same rights as humans, because humans are our own kind, we sort of invalidate arguments against racism. Animals are stupid, and fury and 4-legged and different shaped, but that doesn't matter. Would you kill a person whose head was the only part which grew?
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    All living things die sooner or later. The act of killing an animal is not as great a sin as some perceive. Killing a human is different for emotional reasons (anyone not a psychopath will feel serious guilt), and for reasons of rationalised morality related to the value we put on a human life.
    We all die eventually, so why exist?
    Because of the emotions we feel for humans, they're more valuable? Okey dokey, let's kill the homeless drunk guy behind the grocery store. I feel less emotions for him than my dad, so there's nothing wrong with killing him to make the entire town happier. He won't exist anymore, so hundreds of people will be happier.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Maybe it seems natural because it is natural. The concept of cruelty is just a human cultural idea. Cultures change
    Every standard we have wouldn't matter by that logic. It would be like getting rid of food stamps.

    It seems everyone has a nihilistic attitude towards animals, myslef included. I'm not surprised, because not being cruel has no logical reasoning, except emotions. People with few emotions for animals view this topic as illogical. That's why I'm trying to include logic here. Personally, my emotions are enough for me to have this opinion, but that doesn't invalidate what else I said. It just distracts from it.
    Whether directly or indirectly, everything we do is based on either emotions or habits. We do something because we want to, or because that's considered normal.

    The most applicable thing to this thread is this problem: people must want to do something to do it (even if you want to do something to avoid stress, such as a paper). People's opinions on cruelty will always differ, so cruelty is a completely different subject for different people. In the end, many people don't even think about it. Removing something's existence doesn't matter, because life is one big simple equation in which animals have no part.
    Life isn't so black and white, especially in ethics. There's no math here, just our basic instincts which guide our entire existence.
    Ascended likes this.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    All living things die sooner or later. The act of killing an animal is not as great a sin as some perceive. Killing a human is different for emotional reasons (anyone not a psychopath will feel serious guilt), and for reasons of rationalised morality related to the value we put on a human life.
    We all die eventually, so why exist?
    Because of the emotions we feel for humans, they're more valuable? Okey dokey, let's kill the homeless drunk guy behind the grocery store. I feel less emotions for him than my dad, so there's nothing wrong with killing him to make the entire town happier. He won't exist anymore, so hundreds of people will be happier.
    Interesting example, a homeless drunk guy,...Edgar Allan Poe

    Ethical arguments in favor to vegetarianism vs. ethical reasons in favor to a non-vegetarian diet:
    Ethical Arguments for Vegetarianism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    However, experimental science is more accurate than the best philosophic reasonings.
    Can science stop the vegetarian controversy? From a nutritional POV is meat superior to all possible vegetal combinations & supplements?
    From an economic POV is .....?

    If experimental science can't solve this aenigma, means the veggie aenigma maybe will never be solved? ...oh no, poor inquisitive children , ...another impossible aenigma for them, as the origin of life, the mysterium iniquitates...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Killing and butchering your own meat does not need to involve any cruelty at all. You just need the skills and the capacity to feed and maintain healthy animals and to kill them without them ever realising what's happened
    But, knows you any non uneconomical method for the massive killing of animals.
    I'm still thinking lions are asphix specialists, guess their method is by far painless than ours, course i cant say the same about crocodiles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    [QUOTE=bezoar;395390]
    But, knows you any non uneconomical method for the massive killing of animals.
    Yes.

    Here in NZ, our meat works kill cows with a bolt in the back of the head, driven with enormous force. It is instantaneous, and the cow has no time to even realise it has been hit. Mostly, they are killed by the blow, but any that might not be will die soon after when their throats are cut, and they are so deeply unconscious that the throat cutting is unfelt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    [QUOTE=skeptic;395553]
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    But, knows you any non uneconomical method for the massive killing of animals.
    Yes.

    Here in NZ, our meat works kill cows with a bolt in the back of the head, driven with enormous force. It is instantaneous, and the cow has no time to even realise it has been hit. Mostly, they are killed by the blow, but any that might not be will die soon after when their throats are cut, and they are so deeply unconscious that the throat cutting is unfelt.
    Here in the U.S., people aren't so humane (although it is done in some slaughterhouses). The biggest issue is the living quality, and the fact that removing something's existence isn't moral if it has a good life.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I've attended a "branding" in Alberta, Canada: Calves are brought into a large corral, with their mothers present because this makes them less agitated. Each calf is lassoed around 2-3 legs, tripped, and pinned to the ground by the weight of two people. The calf doesn't like this. It's given shots as well as oral medicine, and a plastic number tag (not firebrand anymore) is stapled to its ear. The calf doesn't really start to bellow in earnest until it's castrated. Then it's allowed to run to it's mother, and the next calf is lassoed, and so forth.

    These ranchers (my relatives) have a unique angle on necessary vs. unnecessary cruelty. In their experience, animals suffer in all sorts of ways by accident or nature, or by human action or neglect. They accept that animals suffer. Cruelty is another thing: this is when a person takes pleasure in animal suffering. A hint of that will put a chill through the room. So while insensitivity to animal suffering is seen as a positive trait (and in the business it's really necessary) cruelty for its own sake is considered deeply perverse.

    My own positions regarding the meat industry are a cross of fascist and head-in-the-sand. Firstly, I'm a big fan of the human collective, and believe a Terrible Power we have is the ability to do as a group what would be intolerable as individuals. Since I believe the whole greater and more valuable than the sum of its parts, the group has different freedoms and responsibilities, and moral bounds, than individuals. Secondly, I'm more concerned with human sentiment than animal welfare. A hands-on personal act of meanness betrays a black heart, while an abstract, impersonal act doesn't. My attention here is all on the person not the animal: I want to know if the person has failed to feel when feelings should have been evoked. Altogether, my solution to the issue is that most individuals should not look so closely they must have a gut reaction.
    Neverfly likes this.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I've attended a "branding" in Alberta, Canada: Calves are brought into a large corral, with their mothers present because this makes them less agitated. Each calf is lassoed around 2-3 legs, tripped, and pinned to the ground by the weight of two people. The calf doesn't like this. It's given shots as well as oral medicine, and a plastic number tag (not firebrand anymore) is stapled to its ear. The calf doesn't really start to bellow in earnest until it's castrated. Then it's allowed to run to it's mother, and the next calf is lassoed, and so forth.

    These ranchers (my relatives) have a unique angle on necessary vs. unnecessary cruelty. In their experience, animals suffer in all sorts of ways by accident or nature, or by human action or neglect. They accept that animals suffer. Cruelty is another thing: this is when a person takes pleasure in animal suffering. A hint of that will put a chill through the room. So while insensitivity to animal suffering is seen as a positive trait (and in the business it's really necessary) cruelty for its own sake is considered deeply perverse.

    My own positions regarding the meat industry are a cross of fascist and head-in-the-sand. Firstly, I'm a big fan of the human collective, and believe a Terrible Power we have is the ability to do as a group what would be intolerable as individuals. Since I believe the whole greater and more valuable than the sum of its parts, the group has different freedoms and responsibilities, and moral bounds, than individuals. Secondly, I'm more concerned with human sentiment than animal welfare. A hands-on personal act of meanness betrays a black heart, while an abstract, impersonal act doesn't. My attention here is all on the person not the animal: I want to know if the person has failed to feel when feelings should have been evoked. Altogether, my solution to the issue is that most individuals should not look so closely they must have a gut reaction.
    There are a few flaws in your argument:
    It is great that your relatives respect animals to a point. If all our meat was made that way, the world would be much less icky. But that's not good enough. Better to give someone a horrible life than a hell-like life, methinks.
    You don't care about animals? I know that question is sentimental. So is getting mad at someone for killing someone, or not wanting to kill someone if you don't have to.
    I'm going to say this straightforward and stereotypically: animals matter. It's greedy to barley care about animals.
    If it is good to avoid unneccessary cruelty to animals, isn't it better to avoid all cruelty?
    The whole matters quite a bit. Numbers matter quite a bit. 50 billion animals?

    Pretty much the only real argument in this subject is whether or not animals deserve any ethical rights. That's an opinion, just like opinions on slavery.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    You said there are flaws in my argument but I don't see where you point them out. I think you're confused because my solution admits, and hinges upon, willful contradiction.

    I embrace the contradiction, to accommodate conflicting interests: of personal sentiments, and of civilization (one may add the conflicting interests of animals if desired, but personal sentiments mostly cover those). That a group should do only what an individual person should do, is a fallacy. Groups (and species) are on a different moral plane. I expect a group to place group interests above those of individual members; ultimately this benefits the majority of members. I am not an anarchist and I can't accept life without personal sacrifices for the good of the group.

    I also embrace the full depth of human sentiment and empathy that makes animal suffering abhorrent to our hearts. So when an activist shows me photos of suffering animals I won't suppress my gut reaction. I hope everybody would feel the same. And I don't wish that upset on anybody. I consider such appeals to emotion a dirty tactic, and harmful because it makes viewers deny or twist their feelings to maintain a position. Better groups protect human feelings, not exploit them. The meat industry and all our culture relating to meat has been very sensitive to human feelings.


    You said the only real argument in this subject is whether or not animals deserve any ethical rights. Isn't one species granting ethical rights to others, weird and unprecedented? Why is this an issue? The issue stems from our involuntary and characteristically human capacity to empathize for other species. It's about how we feel. A solution that addresses how we feel, is enough.

    I suppose you could sum up my solution as an argument for discretion. Discretion's out of fashion lately, in this age of too-much-information. And I know on a science forum the worst sin is willful ignorance. Yet I hope people followed my reasoning and understand it to be honest and complete.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    That a group should do only what an individual person should do, is a fallacy. Groups (and species) are on a different moral plane. I expect a group to place group interests above those of individual members; ultimately this benefits the majority of members. I am not an anarchist and I can't accept life without personal sacrifices for the good of the group.
    Why is the group of humans wirth more than a much larger group of animals?
    What personal sacrifices are you talking about? If I wanted to, I could just ignore animal farming completely. It's not like I see animals getting slaughtered often. I just hear about it and want to say something, it doesn't harm me in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    So when an activist shows me photos of suffering animals I won't suppress my gut reaction. I hope everybody would feel the same. And I don't wish that upset on anybody. I consider such appeals to emotion a dirty tactic, and harmful because it makes viewers deny or twist their feelings to maintain a position. Better groups protect human feelings, not exploit them. The meat industry and all our culture relating to meat has been very sensitive to human feelings.
    I consider that a dirty tactic as well. They can easily show the worst of the worst of the worst, so I generally don't trust them. In addition, they are gory, so they give us less empathy. None of us can imagine that level of injury. Personally, I deny it accidentally. What really matters is the simple knowledge that we're putting animals through hell every time we slaughter them, and their lives are usually hell.
    Why would showing pictures make someone's opinions less valid? If they decide in favor of animal rights, that's based on emotions. If they decide against animal rights, that's based on emotions, just like absolutely everything we do (except habit), unfortunately.
    "Better groups protect emotional feelings, not exploit them." The first type of group is simply withholding information. Personally, I would want to know if kids in China were killed. You don't need to, it's optional to stop a guy killing someone. (Note that I've been treating animals equal to humans so far.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    You said the only real argument in this subject is whether or not animals deserve any ethical rights. Isn't one species granting ethical rights to others, weird and unprecedented? Why is this an issue? The issue stems from our involuntary and characteristically human capacity to empathize for other species. It's about how we feel. A solution that addresses how we feel, is enough.
    It's involuntary to feel emotions. So what? By that logic, absolutely nothing matters. It doesn't matter whether you eat or not, because that's an instinct.
    You're viewing inter-species empathy as an error in human nature. Why do people focus on that single error, while ignoring so many others? What can we call an error? Here are some errors, using the same logic for each:
    -Helping people you will never see again.
    -Eating anything slightly unhealthy.
    -Getting mad at someone when it doesn't help you.
    -Not having knowledge.
    The brain certainly isn't perfect, especially the emotional part. Unfortunately, that's how life works. This is surprisingly hard for most people to accept, myself included. When we start questioning the basic goals which humans live based on, we get into arguments as complex and unending as animal rights.

    I understood your reasoning to be very honest. Most arguments about this get out of hand, but this argument is going much better than that, methinks.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    I understood your reasoning to be very honest. Most arguments about this get out of hand, but this argument is going much better than that, methinks.
    Thank you too.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    (Q#1) Why is the group of humans wirth more than a much larger group of animals?

    (Q#2) What personal sacrifices are you talking about?
    A#1: Tradition. We owe our existence to the tradition of putting humanity's interests ahead of ants or cows. Other species, regardless of their numbers, survive the same way (though of course they don't think about it). I'm not going to break with 3.5 billion years of tradition for a bright idea only humans of the last century conjured up to be clever. Besides, how do you revise the game rules if other species won't/can't respect your new rules?

    A#2: Members make all sorts of sacrifices. Geese fly in formation though some are exhausted and some are impatient. You put your trash in a litterbox.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    What really matters is the simple knowledge that we're putting animals through hell every time we slaughter them, and their lives are usually hell.
    Why would showing pictures make someone's opinions less valid? If they decide in favor of animal rights, that's based on emotions. If they decide against animal rights, that's based on emotions, just like absolutely everything we do (except habit), unfortunately.
    If we didn't exist, animal welfare would be a non-issue. And the more in-your-face it is, the more emotional and compelling.

    Let me tell you about a dog turd on the sidewalk I passed the other day. I have created an issue for you where there was none. Shall I describe it? It is disgusting. You should be feeling an emotional reaction. If I post a picture of it, I'm sure you'll find my opinion valid. You might even want to sign my petition against dog turds on the sidewalk.

    If I'd been discrete, the dog turd would still exist factually, but not as an issue for you. Better know nothing about it, right? The fact that there are hundreds of dog turds in every city doesn't change that it is better not to draw much attention to them. I don't own a dog personally, but I quietly accept sidewalk dog turds as a sacrifice I make to the motley group of city-dwellers I'm a part of.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Personally, I would want to know if kids in China were killed.
    And know of every other outrage, you mean.

    Can you moderate that with the knowledge that humans are insatiably curious, and have a need to feel outraged? I guarantee you there are affluent retirees right now scanning the sidewalks for dog turds to feel outraged at. Later they'll go home and boost the ratings of a TV documentary about the latest evil committed by some foreign country, like China.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    It's involuntary to feel emotions. So what? By that logic, absolutely nothing matters. It doesn't matter whether you eat or not, because that's an instinct.
    You're viewing inter-species empathy as an error in human nature. Why do people focus on that single error, while ignoring so many others?
    I believe people can learn to respect and direct their feelings without being deluded by them or exploited through them. This requires people accept contradictions in life, for example you love your cat but you'll say no to the vet's proposed $5000 treatment. Topically, it means you can eat bacon knowing full well you haven't the stomach to personally slaughter a pig.

    Why instinct and emotion render life meaningless, I dunno where you get that idea. My purpose is to continue what began 3.5 billion years ago, regardless actually of radical second thoughts my recently swollen brain might conjure up.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    I understood your reasoning to be very honest. Most arguments about this get out of hand, but this argument is going much better than that, methinks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Thank you too.
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    (Q#1) Why is the group of humans wirth (was 2 AM, thought that was how it’s spelled) more than a much larger group of animals?
    (Q#2) What personal sacrifices are you talking about?
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    A#1: Tradition. We owe our existence to the tradition of putting humanity's interests ahead of ants or cows. Other species, regardless of their numbers, survive the same way (though of course they don't think about it). I'm not going to break with 3.5 billion years of tradition for a bright idea only humans of the last century conjured up to be clever. Besides, how do you revise the game rules if other species won't/can't respect your new rules?
    This isn’t a game, and if it is we’re certainly changing the game rules with civilization. People often do immoral things because everyone does them. Racism and execution are examples. That doesn’t mean they’re right. You can keep ignoring immoral things if you want. Ignorance is bliss.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    A#2: Members make all sorts of sacrifices. Geese fly in formation though some are exhausted and some are impatient. You put your trash in a litterbox.
    How is it a sacrifice for me to deal with animals being harmed? If I had that attitude, I would’ve stopped long ago. I’ll reverse the argument- you need to make a sacrifice and stop eating meat, for the good of the masses. You’ll feed others at least 7 pounds of food for every pound of meat you don’t eat.
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    What really matters is the simple knowledge that we're putting animals through hell every time we slaughter them, and their lives are usually hell.
    Why would showing pictures make someone's opinions less valid? If they decide in favor of animal rights, that's based on emotions. If they decide against animal rights, that's based on emotions, just like absolutely everything we do (except habit), unfortunately.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    If we didn't exist, animal welfare would be a non-issue. And the more in-your-face it is, the more emotional and compelling.
    By that logic, teachers shouldn’t tell you your test grades. It would cause you to do something different than you would have, by giving us emotional delusions.
    Your first point suggests ignoring an alcoholic’s problem, because if he didn’t exist then he wouldn’t be a problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Let me tell you about a dog turd on the sidewalk I passed the other day. I have created an issue for you where there was none. Shall I describe it? It is disgusting. You should be feeling an emotional reaction. If I post a picture of it, I'm sure you'll find my opinion valid. You might even want to sign my petition against dog turds on the sidewalk.
    If I'd been discrete, the dog turd would still exist factually, but not as an issue for you. Better know nothing about it, right? The fact that there are hundreds of dog turds in every city doesn't change that it is better not to draw much attention to them. I don't own a dog personally, but I quietly accept sidewalk dog turds as a sacrifice I make to the motley group of city-dwellers I'm a part of.
    I’m not not making a sacrifice to deal with animals being farmed, but I kind of am making a sacrifice to deal with arguing about this.
    Our opinions are fundamentally different. You think human happiness is the only thing which matters, whereas I don’t. You also prefer to ignore it, and not do anything about it (although that would be a bit silly with the dog turd example, because it’s such a small inconvenience, it would be slightly good to pick up dog turd.) Whether or not animals are worth anything- that is the crux of this argument. Unless you have some reason that isn’t the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Personally, I would want to know if kids in China were killed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    And know of every other outrage, you mean.
    Can you moderate that with the knowledge that humans are insatiably curious, and have a need to feel outraged? I guarantee you there are affluent retirees right now scanning the sidewalks for dog turds to feel outraged at. Later they'll go home and boost the ratings of a TV documentary about the latest evil committed by some foreign country, like China.
    I wasn’t being racist; I was making a statement about their government. Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    101st Tibetan to self-immolate in protest of Chinese rule since 2009 dies*in Nepal - NY Daily News (didn’t intend the picture). It was your same way of thinking which led to this. For the good of the masses, some people were conquered. Now Tibetans aren’t considered equals by Chinese people (or at least every Chinese person I’ve known seems to have been brain washed by their government. It probably isn’t that, but rather everyone thinking it is normal causes it to seem normal for others.)
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    It's involuntary to feel emotions. So what? By that logic, absolutely nothing matters. It doesn't matter whether you eat or not, because that's an instinct.
    You're viewing inter-species empathy as an error in human nature. Why do people focus on that single error, while ignoring so many others?
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I believe people can learn to respect and direct their feelings without being deluded by them or exploited through them. This requires people accept contradictions in life, for example you love your cat but you'll say no to the vet's proposed $5000 treatment. Topically, it means you can eat bacon knowing full well you haven't the stomach to personally slaughter a pig.
    Deluded? I agree that emotions can delude. (Sorry for the way this sounds. Everyone has been deluded by emotions.) Unfortunately, emotions have deluded you. You want to eat meat, and you won’t sacrifice a large amount of money to allow your cat to keep existing. The money has a larger effect on your emotions than your cat’s death. The same would be true for me if I didn’t think about it for long. After thinking about it for a while, I concluded that a cat is worth more than $5000 dollars of cars, vacations, non-labor, or non-financial stress. Personally, I’d prefer the lack of stress, but I also take into account ethics/duty. If duty is worthless, then why aren’t other emotions worthless?
    I feel like I contradicted something there, so you might want to look for that. I think it has something to do with me saying something about sacrifices to the whole. I don’t remember what.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Why instinct and emotion render life meaningless, I dunno where you get that idea. My purpose is to continue what began 3.5 billion years ago, regardless actually of radical second thoughts my recently swollen brain might conjure up.
    “You said the only real argument in this subject is whether or not animals deserve any ethical rights. Isn't one species granting ethical rights to others, weird and unprecedented? [Like eating anything from out of Africa, because that’s not how we started. We change.] Why is this an issue? The issue stems from our involuntary and characteristically human capacity to empathize for other species. It's about how we feel.”
    “It's involuntary to feel emotions. So what? By that logic, absolutely nothing matters. It doesn't matter whether you eat or not, because that's an instinct.” Was my response. If basic goals encoded within instinct circuitry of the brain don’t matter, then nothing matters for us. Your argument is based on denying the basic goals of humans. That’s like me saying that farms are stupid, because eating doesn’t matter, because eating doesn’t matter. Your argument involves circular reasoning. I suppose mine does as well. From there, you could argue that some goals are more valuable than others. That’s what this argument is about.
    BTW, to show you that all decisions are based on instinct, Is there any action or decision not controlled by instinct?
    So we should ignore our blotted brains? You’re on the wrong forum then.
    What do those “radical second thoughts” say? This isn’t a rhetorical question.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    People often do immoral things because everyone does them.
    If everybody does them, how do you know they are immoral?
    After thinking about it for a while, I concluded that a cat is worth more than $5000 dollars of cars, vacations, non-labor, or non-financial stress.
    Why not let the cat die and save all the birds and chipmunks it would have killed? Surely there is a more wothy charity than a sick cat which will probably die soon anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    People often do immoral things because everyone does them.
    If everybody does them, how do you know they are immoral?
    After thinking about it for a while, I concluded that a cat is worth more than $5000 dollars of cars, vacations, non-labor, or non-financial stress.
    Why not let the cat die and save all the birds and chipmunks it would have killed? Surely there is a more wothy charity than a sick cat which will probably die soon anyway.
    I meant most people. Slavery was immoral, yet people didn't think so. It's just an opinion similar to people who disagreed with slavery. (I know you don't think the two are comparable.) On the ethics side of this argument, everything is fundamentally disagreed on, so it'll probably get us nowhere. What do you think of the environmental and food-quantity impacts?
    I agree with the last statement, although the same isn't true with farm animals. I wouldn't kill my cats because I'm too influenced by what I see directly in front of me, unfortunately.
    It's spelt wirth, not woth. Are you mad at me or something?
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    People often do immoral things because everyone does them.
    If everybody does them, how do you know they are immoral?
    After thinking about it for a while, I concluded that a cat is worth more than $5000 dollars of cars, vacations, non-labor, or non-financial stress.
    Why not let the cat die and save all the birds and chipmunks it would have killed? Surely there is a more wothy charity than a sick cat which will probably die soon anyway.
    I meant most people.
    All right then, if most people do immoral things, how do you know they are immoral?
    Slavery was immoral, yet people didn't think so.
    If people didn't think so then, why do you think so now?
    It's just an opinion similar to people who disagreed with slavery. (I know you don't think the two are comparable.)
    What are the two things I don't think are comparable?
    What do you think of the environmental and food-quantity impacts?
    I don't care about them.
    Are you mad at me or something?
    No, not at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    I wasn't very clear saying that morality is an opinion.
    Absolutely no reason.
    Slavery and animal agriculture.
    Why not?
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Members make all sorts of sacrifices. Geese fly in formation though some are exhausted and some are impatient. You put your trash in a litterbox.
    How is it a sacrifice for me to deal with animals being harmed?
    If it upsets you, but you "accept what you cannot change" that's a sacrifice you make for the good of the group. Or, in terms Americans should like: You tolerate the freedoms of others, including freedoms you consider immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Iíll reverse the argument- you need to make a sacrifice and stop eating meat, for the good of the masses. Youíll feed others at least 7 pounds of food for every pound of meat you donít eat.
    I find that more compelling than animal rights. But this thread's about cruelty to animals, so chalk a win and leave it for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Our opinions are fundamentally different. You think human happiness is the only thing which matters, whereas I donít. You also prefer to ignore it, and not do anything about it. Whether or not animals are worth anything- that is the crux of this argument.
    What matters most to me is the survival and expansion of my civilization and species. I enjoy happiness too, but I'd be ashamed of a life that was merely about pursuing happiness. Now, the greatest good ("what matters most", above) appears to be served by butchering animals: We've thrived all the while we've been butchering animals. I see no catastrophe in continuing (but granted, the 7:1 lbs. I'll have to think about). Then, the lesser good of happiness, is upset by butchery. You see how I weigh these? On balance, I must say we go on butchering, though it upsets us. That resolved, I suggest we avoid unnecessary upset, by again following tradition: don't let it bother you. Of course we know the problem of killing animals will be revisited, so "don't let it bother you" is just a coping strategy.

    I don't weigh against "Whether or not animals are worth anything" because I don't believe humanity has authority to grant intrinsic value to anything outside humanity. We could say animals have value to us, but rating animals in themselves? It's not our place.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Since it appears that this thread has something to do with vegetarianism, I will put forward my primary objection to the all vegetable diet: The ultimate destruction of all the animals currently kept as food animals. There are vast numbers of cattle on our planet who's existence depends upon humans tending them. The humans (farmers) tend these herds because they profit from doing so. If there was no one eating meat that does not mean that cows suddenly become pets, it means they become pests. Ariculture is a business. It is ruled by the balence sheet. An animal that you can't sell is a liablity. Every mouthful of food it eats comes out of your profit. Every square meter of earth it occupies is a square meter you can't raise a cash crop on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    What is the average life expectancy of a cow? The problem would solve itself in a generation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    What is the average life expectancy of a cow? The problem would solve itself in a generation.
    You are talking of killing not just the extant cows, but all cows to come. Every forward generation would not exist. A species extinct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    We've both overlooked the milk, butter and cheese industry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Is there a correspondence between the intelligence of animals and their diet?

    I have the impression that the animals whose brains has evolved less, are cruel bloodthirsty predators: crocodiles, snakes, lions, etc

    And in the other hand, the more intelligent animals, closest to man, are semi-vegetarians or vegetarians: chimpanzee, gorilla, birds (like that famous mathematician parrot). Dogs are excluded 'cause domestication & man-made reproduction improved their skills.

    Good argument in favor to vegetarianism?

    Why or how chimps and birds developed high intelligence with meatless diets? Unintelligent sloths: Sloth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    A bear, an omnivore, is less intelligent than almost all primates.

    I find it intriguing, does anybody could post a chart on intelligence scale of animals please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    There are vast numbers of cattle on our planet who's existence depends upon humans tending them.
    These cattle could give milk and/or be sold as meat 'til their generation dissapear.
    Or are you referring to wild cows, are they in danger of extinction? Have you reliable datum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    Is there a correspondence between the intelligence of animals and their diet?

    I have the impression that the animals whose brains has evolved less, are cruel bloodthirsty predators: crocodiles, snakes, lions, etc

    And in the other hand, the more intelligent animals, closest to man, are semi-vegetarians or vegetarians: chimpanzee, gorilla, birds (like that famous mathematician parrot). Dogs are excluded 'cause domestication & man-made reproduction improved their skills.

    Good argument in favor to vegetarianism?

    Why or how chimps and birds developed high intelligence with meatless diets? Unintelligent sloths: Sloth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    A bear, an omnivore, is less intelligent than almost all primates.

    I find it intriguing, does anybody could post a chart on intelligence scale of animals please?
    I think herbivores are generally least intelligent, then carrnivores, then omnivores. Rodents are primarily herbivore (?), dinosaurs are carnivores, and humans are omnivores. Of course, it isn't at all that simple (and I doubt it follows that pattern). The fish we evolved from could've been omnivores, and I think all branches of evolution often change diets. We recently evolved the ability to eat meat, for example.

    List of animals by number of neurons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The section by number of cortical neurons shows intelligence most accurately. The intelligence is somewhat defined by body to brain ratio, so an elephant isn't more intelligent than a primate.
    I'm a vegetarian, and I have average intelligence, and lower than average memory. Diet doesn't affect anything except nutrients. Only very low nutrient levels would affect brain growth.
    I think vegans are less nihilistic about animals, which is smart. Besides that, not eating meat usually means being raised that way (whereas vegans don't usually start vegan).
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The most intelligent is human, and omnivore. The next big class is a mix of the great apes (omnivores) and the toothed whales (total carnivores). After them comes members of the order carnivora, including seals, felines, canids etc. All carnivores.

    The most intelligent bird is the kea (omnivore) and members of the crow family (mainly carnivores). The most intelligent invertebrates are cephalopods (total carnivores).

    Carnivores rule as the dominant class of intelligentsia. Omnivores second.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    The most intelligent is human, and omnivore. The next big class is a mix of the great apes (omnivores) and the toothed whales (total carnivores). After them comes members of the order carnivora, including seals, felines, canids etc. All carnivores.

    The most intelligent bird is the kea (omnivore) and members of the crow family (mainly carnivores). The most intelligent invertebrates are cephalopods (total carnivores).

    Carnivores rule as the dominant class of intelligentsia. Omnivores second.
    Very interesting.
    Now i can imagine some terrifing aliens cloning flesh from millions of animal species (including hominids) and devouring it quickly in any sort of Death Star (Star Wars's spacestation). And in a underhand manner, cloning human flesh for consume it.

    Why not to eat chimps? See you any moral problem there?
    Why millonaires do not eat a different animal specie each day?... they eats as poors do
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    I'm not sure if you were implying this, but the fact that carvivores are generally more intelligent than herbivores has nothing to do with the intelligence of single individuals of a species. It just relates to the entire species' intelligence.
    To add to the point about eating chimps, why not eat dogs or cats? The less similar to humans an animal is, the less humans care about it. That could be why many "vegetarians" eat fish.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    Why not to eat chimps? See you any moral problem there?
    Many Africans do eat chimps. They are one of the targets of 'bush meat' hunters, and sell their meat to Africans to cook and eat. The main moral problem comes from the fact that chimps are dying out in the wild and may end up extinct as a wild species, with just a few bred in captivity. The second moral question comes from the fact that they are smart, and killing them is killing an intelligent animal.

    Yes, I do see a moral problem with killing an intelligent animal. This is probably even more a moral problem with cetaceans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Yes, I do see a moral problem with killing an intelligent animal. This is probably even more a moral problem with cetaceans.
    While I don't disagree, the distinction is purely emotional. Intelligence is relative. Might consign us all to eating bugs. Or subsisting totally on bacteria.

    Personally, I disagree with eating something intelligent like a dolphin; but deers is stupid. 'Cuz I says so.

    For that matter, humans should be viable as a food source...






    hmmmm...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    the distinction is purely emotional.
    That is the nature of the word 'moral'. Anything we call 'moral' or 'morality' has to be based on emotion. However, such classifications are still needed to prevent humans being unrestrained forces of destruction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Might consign us all to eating bugs.
    Funny you should say that as some experts are predicting exactly that for the future. It may well be the case that we simply can't all eat meat if the worlds population continues to expand, though the idea of eating bugs isn't very appetizing to many of us they could provide a good protein rich substitute to meat.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    still needed to prevent humans being unrestrained forces of destruction.
    Why bother?
    Avast, ye mateys! I see opportunity on th' horizon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Funny you should say that as some experts are predicting exactly that for the future. It may well be the case that we simply can't all eat meat if the worlds population continues to expand, though the idea of eating bugs isn't very appetizing to many of us they could provide a good protein rich substitute to meat.
    Experts...
    Yeah there's some talk of 'growing meat' in sheets factory style. Not the animals, just the meat.

    Bugs are small though. Not good for chops, filet mignon or bacon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Yeah there's some talk of 'growing meat' in sheets factory style. Not the animals, just the meat.

    Bugs are small though. Not good for chops, filet mignon or bacon.


    Yes the idea of a nice juicy steak is much more appealing than eating bugs, can we but hope come 20 or 30 years time we still have the choice.

    BBC News - Future foods: What will we be eating in 20 years' time?

    Dutch Scientists Predict Insects Could Be Future Food - YouTube
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Speak for yourself- I know how to hunt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I find myself very skeptical of the BBC item. A short term rise in meat prices does not mean it will double. Overall, meat prices tend to rise with inflation, and wages likewise. In other words, meat will remain on the menu.

    On the other hand, if new generations are raised to eat locust mince, mixed with textured soy bean extract, they will relish that meal just as much as I relish a good rare fillet steak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    On the other hand, if new generations are raised to eat locust mince, mixed with textured soy bean extract, they will relish that meal just as much as I relish a good rare fillet steak.
    That's a nature vs. nurture argument in which case I claim a very definite maybe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    [QUOTE=skeptic;403588]I find myself very skeptical of the BBC item. A short term rise in meat prices does not mean it will double. Overall, meat prices tend to rise with inflation, and wages likewise. In other words, meat will remain on the menu.[QUOTE]
    We can always build bigger factory farms, so price won't be the problem. Pollution could be one. Excessive antibiotic use is another. These problems could be solved, though.
    Fake meat could become more like steak than bugs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Speak for yourself- I know how to hunt.
    That won't be of any use soon.

    Bugs already are in food, more like chemicals than meat. Maybe they'll be used in meat, to decrease the amount of meat needed.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    Is there a correspondence between the intelligence of animals and their diet?
    I have the impression that the animals whose brains has evolved less, are cruel bloodthirsty predators: crocodiles, snakes, lions, etcAnd in the other hand, the more intelligent animals, closest to man, are semi-vegetarians or vegetarians: chimpanzee, gorilla, birds (like that famous mathematician parrot). Dogs are excluded 'cause domestication & man-made reproduction improved their skills.Good argument in favor to vegetarianism?Why or how chimps and birds developed high intelligence with meatless diets? Unintelligent sloths: Sloth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA bear, an omnivore, is less intelligent than almost all primates.I find it intriguing, does anybody could post a chart on intelligence scale of animals please?
    Chimpanzees and birds are not vegetarians. Chimpanzees hunt for meat just like humans. Birds eat worms and insects. Some birds, like owls, and vultures, eat mammals. Dogs evolved from wolves and wolves are very good hunters without any help from people. Edit:Bears are not primates.
    Last edited by Alec Bing; March 18th, 2013 at 04:02 PM. Reason: Typo and added owls
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. product notation PI
    By jameswell in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 24th, 2012, 01:15 PM
  2. dot product
    By newspaper in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 16th, 2008, 11:16 PM
  3. Product Reactions
    By 314 in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 26th, 2008, 04:35 PM
  4. Solubility product
    By WeT|Chem in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 10th, 2007, 05:44 AM
  5. Whats the product?
    By Onyx in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 6th, 2006, 04:24 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •