Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[Sair]

What animal charities often are nowadays are places where people take care of animals for the animal’s sake at the expense of humanity, and where money is spent putting animals above humans, or equal to humans in importance, sometimes in advertising sometimes politically. It seems as if the movement is contaminated by people with a sentimental and emotional view towards animals that is disordered, against humanity.

Which is basically a subset of the environmental movement that has gone this way, putting the environment of more importance than human beings – so that they would rather see technological progress done away with, and react badly to all things that for sentimentalist reasons they see as enemies – DDT, hunting, cutting down trees, etc. when actually all these serve the environment properly done.

The trouble is, most human activities historically have not been done with any view to preserving the environment. Humans are not independent of the world in which we live - to damage our environment is to damage ourselves. The health of the planet is reflected in the diversity of life it can support, and that diversity is rapidly diminishing, primarily due to unthinking human activity. If we don’t take steps to keep the Earth healthy, it will ultimately backfire on us. One can’t treat environmental concerns as if they are independent of human concerns, nor vice versa.

 

[Sair]

WSP says:
ok, but if you give those dollars to a pet charity, they are still charitable dollars, better spent on your fellow human being. there are chidren hungry tonight, right here in america

***You are right and unfortunately that will never end. There are many reasons and you can throw all kinds of charitable money at this problem and it will always be there. ***

WSP says:

oh, i have a huge problem with people living that way, its just not part of the op

But, in all reality you cannot seperate the two. If you are to be totally honest in your feelings you must then take into account all the money people spend on unnecessary thinsg in their lives…and then you must further realize that is their money and they will spend it as they see fit. It is on their conscience.

WSP says:
i completely agree, ostentacious spending is being a poor example of a human being.

You are not the judge…

Great post, BlyssfulDreamer. If I am reading WSP aright, ‘charitable dollars’ only become charitable when the possessor of said dollars chooses to use them for charity. Otherwise they are, apparently, ‘selfish’ dollars. If a person wishes to divide their ‘charitable’ dollars equally between human and animal charities, or decides to forgo some luxury for the sake of having money to donate to animal welfare as well as humans, where’s the bad?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The trouble is, most human activities historically have not been done with any view to preserving the environment. Humans are not independent of the world in which we live - to damage our environment is to damage ourselves. The health of the planet is reflected in the diversity of life it can support, and that diversity is rapidly diminishing, primarily due to unthinking human activity. If we don’t take steps to keep the Earth healthy, it will ultimately backfire on us. One can’t treat environmental concerns as if they are independent of human concerns, nor vice versa.

this is scary, like the folks who want to take drastic action to stop ‘global warming’, like changing albedo or sun shades, etc.

there is a great deal of controversy over whether global warming is real or not.

the people who try to fix it may well destroy the very thing the try to fix. i.e what if the sun shades stopped responding to control, or raising the albedo of the ocean didnt degrade in the right time span.

we couldnt grow crops in an artificail ice age

trying to stop, change, or alter the natural evolution of the biosphere or the planet in any way may well be disastrous.

so leave it alone, we are, an evolutionary pressure. no more right or wrong than any other.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Great post, BlyssfulDreamer. If I am reading WSP aright, ‘charitable dollars’ only become charitable when the possessor of said dollars chooses to use them for charity. Otherwise they are, apparently, ‘selfish’ dollars. If a person wishes to divide their ‘charitable’ dollars equally between human and animal charities, or decides to forgo some luxury for the sake of having money to donate to animal welfare as well as humans, where’s the bad?

because there are still people suffering, you are still violating the golden rule.

you choosing to create charitable dollars from your living expenses, still make them charitable dollars, and people come first.

p.s. i think buying luxury items unnecessarily is immopral too.

 

[Shin]

The trouble is, most human activities historically have not been done with any view to preserving the environment. Humans are not independent of the world in which we live - to damage our environment is to damage ourselves. The health of the planet is reflected in the diversity of life it can support, and that diversity is rapidly diminishing, primarily due to unthinking human activity. If we don’t take steps to keep the Earth healthy, it will ultimately backfire on us. One can’t treat environmental concerns as if they are independent of human concerns, nor vice versa.

Diversity of life it can support, shrinking, Earth not healthy, backfire? Just how exactly? I can’t see it and don’t understand what you are saying, besides that it is very alarmist and it seems on first view quite unrealistically so. The Earth’s fragility and human capacity to damage it is highly overrated in these times to put it lightly.

 

[Salonika]

Cracker_Mom:
in post 422 you attributed this bolded passage to me, this passage orginially came from 403 by cracker mom
Yup.I’m the guilty party…

Cracker Mom it was only about correct attribution - nothing else.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

i dont give my roomba rights, its only a robot, i don’t give animals rights, because they are meat bots. i have yet to see any evidence that animals are more than meatbots, chemically programmed and deterministically driven.

how can you have disrespect for a robot? or a meatbot?, it is an object.

thats no different than my roombas error light, it gives a code, and tells me whats wrong.

code such and such, is ‘anxiety’, some other code is ‘fear’ or ‘pain’

thats not that special.

kick a predator drone, and youll likely feel some pain.

teeth dont make for equality.

So you see an animal and a robot/roomba as the same with resulting lack of rights.

Do you think that animals feel pain or do you think that when my cat yowled with the pain of pancreatis I should have noted it, thought this is just a chemical reaction and walked away. You don’t have to anthromorphosize to know they are in pain and an animal in pain should not be made to suffer because a robot/roomba does not feel pain.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

not if they are chemically programmed meatbots. my roomba cant be said to suffer, even when he cracks his case getting stepped on

and why should suffering be the standard anyway?

Why not? Is there something you see in animals suffering for its own sake especially if it is the result of human indifference or cruelty and they don’t understand why.

Do you also think that suffering for its own sake is okay for humans who suffer at other people’s hands as a result of being aged and infirmed, too young to care for themselves, or with severe physical or intellectual disabilities. I don’t and believe this should be stopped. Aren’t some of these people in your terms the equivalent of meatbots?

warpspeedpetey:

similarity, does not equal any degree of equality

But does not give carte blanche for cruelty and neglect.

warpspeedpetey:

really, so when i act outside my programming, completely opposite to it, such as suicide, etc then thats been evolutionarily programmed? funny, but that would be a evolutionary self defeating program. doesnt make much sense does it?

And when it goes the other way, when we act charitably to people and they do to us is that self-defeating?

warpspeedpetey:

do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This ignores individual differences and desires. Why should I be so arrogant as to always think I know what someone else needs or wants. Yes, I might know if they need food, a motor mechanic but other things are not so straightforward.

warpspeedpetey:

I can imagine the last thing you would want the food given to you, instead of the dog, in a starvation situation.

Unless I was anorexic or starving myself to death to make a political point. There are always exceptions to any rule. That what makes humans and animals more interesting than your roomba.

warpspeedpetey:

you have yet to show that animals are anything more than chemically programmed meatbots. if you cant, then please donate to my new charity for ‘fred roomba’ his error systems are just all lit, up and he really needs your help!

As you consider roombas and animals to be the same I consider you have the same repsonsibility as we who have pets - to look after them oursleves. Anyway if we donated wouldn’t we using our discretionary money wrongly as it should all go to alleviate human suffering.

 

[Salonika]

its a useful tool to point out that there ***is no practical difference ***between a dog or a cat or a robot vacuum cleaner.

Depends on how you define practical.

A cat or dog can’t clean a floor or carpet and a roomba can’t sit on your knee or go on a walk with you. Don’t think I would want a roomba sleeping on my bed, too boney compared with a warm, purring cat.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

its a useful tool to point out that there is no practical difference between a dog or a cat or a robot vacuum cleaner

Sair in reply:

Depends upon how you see them and how you want to relate to them, I suppose. That and the fact that your Roomba doesn’t metabolise, respirate, grow, reproduce - you know, the things that characterise living organisms…

and maybe also because roombas do not have emotions, are always consistent, and make much fewer demands than pets and people. Also they don’t argue back!!!

 

[Salonika]

Shin:

I think what this illustrates above that the purpose of animal charities should be to contribute to human good through animals, rather than animal good through humans

I.E., keeping dangerous animals off the streets, serving as a place for people to acquire healthy animals, spreading knowledge about how animals can best benefit people and people best take care of their animals, etc.

Given the discussion we have been having re the importance of humans over animals and that the view has been expressed by some posters that we should not give any of our discretionary income to animal charities while one human is starving (which I do not agree with and I don’t see why we shouldn’t give to both), why if you hold that view advocate that there should be animal shelters with any other purpose than keep dangerous animals off the streets.

Think about it - all that money is spent on pet animals (food, toys, vet fees) shouldn’t that go to people?

Shin:

It seems as if the movement is contaminated by people with a sentimental and emotional view towards animals that is disordered, against humanity.

Does that include those of us whose companions at home are animals rather than people?

Shin:

Which is basically a subset of the environmental movement that has gone this way, putting the environment of more importance than human beings.

We only have one environment on this earth - ruin it and it could be the end of humanity.

Shin:

A properly ordered view of taking care of animals is one of God>man>animal rather than animal>man>God, the latter equation of which seems to be the popular view of the mainstream of the movement.

Humanity and animals have their place so does the rest of the environment. Envisaging a hierarchy of humanity then animals has the danger of considering that what humans want (not what we need) is more important and we can do what we like to those who are seen as “inferior” rather than different.

 

[Salonika]

BlyssfulDreamer:

Do either of you foks believe those who spend money…*their hard earned dollars which aren’t really theirs’…*on tickets for football games…could run into some big dough there…or buy fancy cars…when a cheaper car will do…or who take lavish trips…when they could go to the nearby park…should instead send their money to the charities which are soley for the helping of other humans? If you feel they should be able to use THEIR money as THEY see fit…whats the big deal about how people like me spend our money? So…?

Good point Blyssful Dreamer.

 

[Sair]

Diversity of life it can support, shrinking, Earth not healthy, backfire? Just how exactly? I can’t see it and don’t understand what you are saying, besides that it is very alarmist and it seems on first view quite unrealistically so. The Earth’s fragility and human capacity to damage it is highly overrated in these times to put it lightly.

Highly overrated on what grounds? I’m perfectly willing to accept that climate change is part of a natural cycle occurring over millions of years, but that does nothing to diminish the fact that humans, in catering for our own needs and desires, have generally ignored the scale of damage we have been inflicting on other life forms, and have been all too willing to trust technology to ‘fix’ these problems for future generations of humans. The number of wilderness areas around the globe have drastically decreased during human history. Why? Because humans have cleared vast tracts of forest not only for living space, but for growing crops and raising livestock.

All very well, you might say. Why not do these things because we can? Well, why not indeed? Extinction of species, pollution of the natural environment and the atmosphere, depletion of soil nutrients, massive waste of materials… Of course, this is all fine and dandy if you think humans are the only species with a right to inhabit the planet, but that would be kind of hard to support. Now that there are nearly 7 billion of us, how do you propose that the Earth go on supporting such numbers, especially given the likelihood that those numbers will continue to increase? Sure, the world’s population at present might fit into Texas, but as an argument against the problem of overpopulation, this one falls in a hole since it fails to take into account the area of arable land and the quantities of potable water required to meet such a population’s most basic needs.

Regardless of how you look at it, and whether you think I’m being alarmist or not, the facts of the matter all lead to the conclusion that we can’t continue to take advantage of the Earth as we have been doing, if we hope to preserve our species. Ignorance is not bliss - it’s just ignorance. Even small steps in the right direction, like installing greywater plumbing systems, growing one’s own vegetables, planting trees, choosing organic and free-range produce, recycling as much as possible, finding natural alternatives to harsh, synthetic substances - all of these things contribute to a more balanced, more humane coexistence for humans and the rest of the world.

There will, alas, always be people who think we should be able to take indefinitely from the Earth’s stock of resources, but hopefully they will ultimately be balanced by a sensible majority who have a care for the future as well as the present. You might notice that I am not advocating the destruction of the human race. We are living animals too, and moreover, we are animals with the capacity to minimise and sometimes even reverse the harm we cause to our surroundings. What’s needed is balance - we can’t just keep taking without giving back.

 

[Sair]

Humanity and animals have their place so does the rest of the environment. Envisaging a hierarchy of humanity then animals has the danger of considering that what humans want (not what we need) is more important and we can do what we like to those who are seen as “inferior” rather than different.

Absolutely agreed. Balance is key.

A couple of things I feel it is worthwhile to point out, regarding taking a balanced view of situations.

Firstly, every single animal charity I know of has been established to care for those animals that are in trouble because of human activity. I cannot but see it as completely appropriate for a measure of human resources to be spent on alleviating suffering caused by humans.

My second point relates to the notion of human moral superiority, which seems for some posters to be intimately linked with our cultural sophistication. However, if you look at history, many of what we might consider the greatest of human accomplishments were achieved under conditions of injustice and abuse. The great civilisations of the ancient world were mostly built on the back of slavery; some of our greatest cultural developments took place during times of deep-rooted inequality between humans under feudal systems of government; the progress of the industrial revolution was achieved at the expense of millions of lost livelihoods and the pollution of human cities; many of the 20th century’s important medical advances came about through the expediency of two world wars; important advances in genetic research were made in Nazi laboratories, on human guinea pigs. So while it’s certainly easy to argue for humanity’s technological and cultural sophistication relative to other creatures, our moral superiority - and by extension, whether we are more deserving of compassion and respect than other creatures - is far more difficult to establish.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So you see an animal and a robot/roomba as the same with resulting lack of rights.

Do you think that animals feel pain or do you think that when my cat yowled with the pain of pancreatis I should have noted it, thought this is just a chemical reaction and walked away. You don’t have to anthromorphosize to know they are in pain and an animal in pain should not be made to suffer because a robot/roomba does not feel pain.

im saying that affectivity isn’t a basis for the existence of animal emotions, as that is a quality my roomba exhibits.

but look, i would fix my roomba when the error light goes on, which is the equivalent to a cat yowling.

you think its strange, but why do you think that?

my opinion is that the cat responds in ways you better understand as a similar chemical entity yourself.

if you were rosie the robot, from the jetsons, you may find it inchomprehensible that someone cant see a roombas error light as pain, while the cats yowling was just noise.

im not saying that you shouldn’t care for your pets, but rather that you shouldnt project emotion on them based on similar chemistry.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

im saying that affectivity isn’t a basis for the existence of animal emotions, as that is a quality my roomba exhibits.

but look, i would fix my roomba when the error light goes on, which is the equivalent to a cat yowling.

you think its strange, but why do you think that?

my opinion is that the cat responds in ways you better understand as a similar chemical entity yourself.

if you were rosie the robot, from the jetsons, you may find it inchomprehensible that someone cant see a roombas error light as pain, while the cats yowling was just noise.

im not saying that you shouldn’t care for your pets, but rather that you shouldnt project emotion on them based on similar chemistry.

As I read more and more of your posts I have to put my coffee down so as to not spit it all over my monitor. I am really glad that you have such a rewarding relationship with your roomba. You seem to enjoy its company, maybe almost as much as I enjoy my little cocker spaniel’s. But does it shake hands, fetch the ball, alert you as to strangers at your door, accompany you on walks, soothe a sad little boy’s heart or look at your with adoring eyes? True, my dog doesn’t vacuum my floor…but my Hoover does that just fine.

I am so sorry that you have not been able to discern the difference between something that is mere nuts and bolts and a creature put on earth by God that breathes, feels pain and is a loving companion. Your loss…Roomba’s gain, I guess.

I have said all I have to on this thread… I’m outta here…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not? Is there something you see in animals suffering for its own sake especially if it is the result of human indifference or cruelty and they don’t understand why.

because its suffering of a human and the ‘suffering’ of an animal are two different things.

the animal is responding to programming. we arent.

Do you also think that suffering for its own sake is okay for humans who suffer at other people’s hands as a result of being aged and infirmed, too young to care for themselves, or with severe physical or intellectual disabilities. I don’t and believe this should be stopped. Aren’t some of these people in your terms the equivalent of meatbots?

nope, being human is a state we all share, by dint of dna, but meatbots dont

even if that were so, then we would all be meatbots, and then have no responsibility to animals anyway

But does not give carte blanche for cruelty and neglect.

no one is talking about doing that, only that humans must come first.

And when it goes the other way, when we act charitably to people and they do to us is that self-defeating?

i dont understand this sentence.

This ignores individual differences and desires. Why should I be so arrogant as to always think I know what someone else needs or wants. Yes, I might know if they need food, a motor mechanic but other things are not so straightforward.

pffft any one saying that they would be fine with a neighbor giving food to a dog, but allows them to starve to death is either, crazy, being dishonest, or completely deluded, it simply doesn’t track with the available evidence of human behavior under those conditions. i.e. the donner party. we will even eat eachother.

Unless I was anorexic or starving myself to death to make a political point. There are always exceptions to any rule. That what makes humans and animals more interesting than your roomba.

unless your ghandi, hunger strikers are usually very mentally ill.

and thats not the situation we are talking about, people suffering from starvation arent doing it voluntarily

As you consider roombas and animals to be the same I consider you have the same repsonsibility as we who have pets - to look after them oursleves. Anyway if we donated wouldn’t we using our discretionary money wrongly as it should all go to alleviate human suffering.

do you have any evidence that my roomba doesnt suffer?

no

do you have evidence that animals are not deterministic meatbots?

no.

and who donates to roombas? that would be like donating to an animal charity. immoral.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Depends on how you define practical.

A cat or dog can’t clean a floor or carpet and a roomba can’t sit on your knee or go on a walk with you. Don’t think I would want a roomba sleeping on my bed, too boney compared with a warm, purring cat.

still, there is no evidence that animals are any different than my roomba.

they dont act of free will, they act based solely on programming, insitinct, the same as my roomba.

the only difference, seems to be that animals are familiar to you, so much so, that you assign them emotions

emotions that cant be shown to exist by any evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As I read more and more of your posts I have to put my coffee down so as to not spit it all over my monitor. I am really glad that you have such a rewarding relationship with your roomba. You seem to enjoy its company, maybe almost as much as I enjoy my little cocker spaniel’s. But does it shake hands, fetch the ball, alert you as to strangers at your door, accompany you on walks, soothe a sad little boy’s heart or look at your with adoring eyes? True, my dog doesn’t vacuum my floor…but my Hoover does that just fine.

its merely an intellectual exercise. almost any other robotic device woulod work. thats just the one that most people are familiar with

I am so sorry that you have not been able to discern the difference between something that is mere nuts and bolts and a creature put on earth by God that breathes, feels pain and is a loving companion. Your loss…Roomba’s gain, I guess.

 

[limerick]

**“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

NOT “Do unto other human beings as you would have them do unto you.”

Limerick**