Why do animals suffer?

[warpspeedpetey]

Everything you say. You have a view that animals lack emotions, this is a view which flies in the face of a bulk of evidence.

that “evidence” is obviously anthropomorphism, it ignores the fact that what is interpreted as emotion, may simply be programmed responses, bad science.

You, in your infinite wisdom, have decided to interpret such evidence as anthropomorphism.

hardly, it is anthropomorphism by definition.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anthropomorphism

an·thro·po·mor·phism

NOUN:

**Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior **to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

as they dont allow that it may be due to programming as opposed to an actual emotion, its an unfounded assertion, something that wouldnt hold water in any of the other sciences.

Given that every animal alive today shares a common ancestor, and has evolved using the same process as humans have, it’s reasonable, even if there weren’t any evidence, to assume that animals have at least some emotional facility. To deny them that means that you ignore their suffering.

i dont ignore, it, i simply believe there is no evidence for it, if you wish me to assume it, what logical reason do i have to stop there? i must then assume it of everything from a roomba to a bacterium. point being that i could make assumptions and assertions about any physical object in the face of a lack of evidence.

a roomba turns away from a staircase, it must be afraid! it couldnt possibly be programming, i can see that its afraid!

see how easy that is?

A rough analogy might be that advanced aliens visit Earth and decide that as we humans aren’t as advanced as them, we lack emotion. They then torture and persecute us on that premise. The difference is that we can vocalise our thoughts. Just because animals haven’t evolved this ability it does NOT mean that they lack emotion. This is common sense but it seems to elude you.

it doesnt elude me at all, i never claimed that the inability to speak means they dont suffer.

My sarcastic comment regarding your apparent omniscience on this subject is nothing more than a recognition of the futility of discussion with someone who ‘knows’ they are right despite evidence to the contrary.

again, what evidence? assumptions and assertions that an animals actions reflect emotion instead of simple programming?

It’s interesting that you accept, without scientific or logical evidence, that God exists, yet you do not show consistency when it comes to animal emotion.

what are you talking about? i have plenty of logical evidence that G-d exists, i can even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the Christain G-d. your making assumptions. seems to be a pattern there. now i assume that you feel there is no logical or scientific evidence for G-d, under that criteria, how can you defend the assumption that animals have emotions and not simple programming, from this side it looks like your turning off your rational mind when addressing this subject in favor of sentimental emotions. the bottom line is i can destroy every piece of evidence presented because of that assumption, in fact im not the only one. check out clive wynne and the historical view of anthropomorphism.

 

[Marfran]

Everything you say. You have a view that animals lack emotions, this is a view which flies in the face of a bulk of evidence. You, in your infinite wisdom, have decided to interpret such evidence as anthropomorphism.

Given that every animal alive today shares a common ancestor, and has evolved using the same process as humans have, it’s reasonable, even if there weren’t any evidence, to assume that animals have at least some emotional facility. To deny them that means that you ignore their suffering.

A rough analogy might be that advanced aliens visit Earth and decide that as we humans aren’t as advanced as them, we lack emotion. They then torture and persecute us on that premise. The difference is that we can vocalise our thoughts. Just because animals haven’t evolved this ability it does NOT mean that they lack emotion. This is common sense but it seems to elude you.

My sarcastic comment regarding your apparent omniscience on this subject is nothing more than a recognition of the futility of discussion with someone who ‘knows’ they are right despite evidence to the contrary.

It’s interesting that you accept, without scientific or logical evidence, that God exists, yet you do not show consistency when it comes to animal emotion.

Very good post. *Anthropomorphism *is the buzz word that people who view animals as commodities, rather than living beings, use to justify their abuse and treatment of animals. It is contextually relevant to use the word anthropomorphism when you are talking about cartoon animals that talk. Respecting real living animals does not require that we anthropomorphize them.

Primates have been taught to use sign language. We are only a few chromosomes away from being a pig, or a chicken… Some humans do not have the ability of speech…

Oh, IF the animals **COULD **talk…WHAT WOULD THEY SAY???

 

[Marfran]

Responding to warpspeedpetey in entry #305

I would assume that you don’t have the qualifications to dispute that evidence beyond expressing your opinion.

Nail exactly on the head.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Very good post. *Anthropomorphism *is the buzz word that people who view animals as commodities, rather than living beings, use to justify their abuse and treatment of animals.

its been attacked as an irrational concept since the greeks, its nothing new, its acceptance a matter of course though is new.

It is contextually relevant to use the word anthropomorphism when you are talking about cartoon animals that talk.

or when you assign human qualities to any non-human object.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anthropomorphism

an·thro·po·mor·phism (nthr-p-môrfzm) KEY

NOUN:

Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

Respecting real living animals does not require that we anthropomorphize them.

your right, it doesnt, but to claim that animals have emotions and not simply programmed responses does.

Primates have been taught to use sign language.

parrots can be trained to talk, does that then mean they have emotions, or have that they talk for treats?

We are only a few chromosomes away from being a pig, or a chicken…

we are only a few chromosomes away from a plants too same DNA structure, same 4 basic building blocks. do plants then feel emotions?

Some humans do not have the ability of speech…

so what? i can assume other people have emotions because i do, even when im not talking.

Oh, IF the animals **COULD **talk…WHAT WOULD THEY SAY???

who knows? but i do know what that little old homeless man that froze to death might have said. “Where is my food? where is my warm shelter? where is the care for me that is being spent on animals? why must i freeze to death while stray animals are warm and fed this night, while i am hungry, and i have only newspapers to cover my body?”

animals or people. which is it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nail exactly on the head.

and that assumption would be wrong. but let me point out that it takes no education at all to point out anthropomorphism.

do you have any evidence that an animals actions are emotions and not simply responses programmed by evolution or training?

thats what it all boils down to, some people make an anthrpomorphic assumption that animals have emotions and that they are not simply preprogrammed responses, like a roomba, more sophisticated, but not any different in kind.

you have a belief you would like to support, but you have no evidence, implying the lack of intelligence or education on my part wont make the lack of evidence any more convincing.

i asked you to leave it be, but if you insist on insulting me than so be it. provide evidence, or admit that you have none.

 

[Marfran]

animals or people. which is it?

Only a small heart would have to choose. You can care for and respect both humans AND animals.

 

[Marfran]

and that assumption would be wrong. but let me point out that it takes no education at all to point out anthropomorphism.

do you have any evidence that an animals actions are emotions and not simply responses programmed by evolution or training?

thats what it all boils down to, some people make an anthrpomorphic assumption that animals have emotions and that they are not simply preprogrammed responses, like a roomba, more sophisticated, but not any different in kind.

you have a belief you would like to support, but you have no evidence, implying the lack of intelligence or education on my part wont make the lack of evidence any more convincing.

i asked you to leave it be, but if you insist on insulting me than so be it. provide evidence, or admit that you have none.

Your use of the word *anthropormorphism *is insulting and the intent is to make people feel guilty about having a concern for animals.

I have worked in wildlife rehabilitation, I have worked closely with both wild and domestic animals. I am personally familiar with non-releasable wild animals (non-releasable to the wild because of the severity of their injuries). These animals must adapt to life in captivity, and are often used in outreach programs to educate the public about wildlife.

The public often makes *anthropomorphic *statements about such animals and they are always corrected by staff. We want the public to view and to understand wildlife and NOT to anthropomorphise animals.

That being said, animals are not robots, not pre-programmed machines, not commodities, DO have basic emotions, and DO have responses that are INDIVIDUAL and are not the result of evolution or training. They are LIVING beings, not objects. And an animal from a specific species can be very different from another animal of the same species.

I advise people **against **anthropomorphism daily. But I do not use that word to encourage people to disregard or to treat animals poorly, or to negate their lives.

I suggest that you do some research on genomes. A good article is What Makes Us Human? in the May issue of Scientific American. There are only tiny genetic differences in our DNA and the DNA of animals. You do not need to change very much of the genome to make a new species. If animals are pre-programmed living robots, then why do we use them in research to test pharmaceuticals etc, to be used on humans?

I forgot–what is your professional experience/education with animals?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only a small heart would have to choose. You can care for and respect both humans AND animals.

you can, but as long as my fellow human being suffers, how can i justify providing for an animal before him? i caught my friend crying at a PETA commercial once, and when pointed out that there had just been a save the children commercial and she didnt cry at that, the conversation boiled down to pets in america should be cared for prior to starving children in africa. i was disgusted.

im not saying not too care for G-ds creation, but i am saying the amount of resources that we lend to animals when humans suffer seems greatly immoral to me.

our first loyalty, is to be to our fellow man, as jesus said the children must be fed before the little dog when the gentile woman asked for him.

its also CCC 2418

 

[redhen]

Some humans do not have the ability of speech…

so what? i can assume other people have emotions because i do, even when im not talking.

See this is what I mean by your standard of evidence, and your slide into solipism. If you can’t experience it, it’s not real. Wow, how did someone this skeptical become a Catholic?

who knows? but i do know what that little old homeless man that froze to death might have said. “Where is my food? where is my warm shelter? where is the care for me that is being spent on animals? why must i freeze to death while stray animals are warm and fed this night, while i am hungry, and i have only newspapers to cover my body?”

animals or people. which is it?

False dichotomy, and appeal to emotion; and this is not evidence for the lack of emotions in non-human animals.

 

[Marfran]

you can, but as long as my fellow human being suffers, how can i justify providing for an animal before him? i caught my friend crying at a PETA commercial once, and when pointed out that there had just been a save the children commercial and she didnt cry at that, the conversation boiled down to pets in america should be cared for prior to starving children in africa. i was disgusted.

im not saying not too care for G-ds creation, but i am saying the amount of resources that we lend to animals when humans suffer seems greatly immoral to me.

our first loyalty, is to be to our fellow man, as jesus said the children must be fed before the little dog when the gentile woman asked for him.

its also CCC 2418

Well, I would CRY over BOTH commercials. Seriously, your friend doesn’t care about starving children??? Everyone who I know who loves animals, have BIG, BIG hearts for both people and animals, and for the whole world/planet. People that I know who do not care for animals, often are also SELECTIVE about the people that they care about, or the groups of people that they care about.

Our first loyalty is not to our fellow man–it is to God.

And what about all the food that we feed to farm animals that could go directly to people instead. Feed it to the starving children instead of the animals that we raise for our “luxury” meat. That is your principle, is it not? That people come first? Or do meat eating people come first, and starving children second?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your use of the word *anthropormorphism *is insulting and the intent is to make people feel guilty about having a concern for animals.

its a technical description of a specific human activity. its intent is to describe the actual situation and not the assumption, if one feels guilt there may well be a reason, but its not intended too.

That being said, animals are not robots, not pre-programmed machines, not commodities, DO have basic emotions, and DO have responses that are INDIVIDUAL and are not the result of evolution or training.

this is the kind of statement that you need evidence for. you just assert that it isnt programming, this is the exact assumption im talking about.

They are LIVING beings, not objects. And an animal from a specific species can be very different from another animal of the same species.

living doesnt seem to matter because i can assert that my roomba is feeling emotions by anthropomorphising its behavior as something more than programming, i dont see any reason to exclude it based on its chemistry.

I advise people **against **anthropomorphism daily. But I do not use that word to encourage people to disregard or to treat animals poorly, or to negate their lives.

nor do i, i use it in the technical sense. opie is asleep on my bed right now, sprawled out on his back, paws in the air like he is king of the house. i like him, he plays fetch and keeps me company. he is actually pretty smart for a cat. but i dont think he has actual emotions.

I suggest that you do some research on genomes. A good article is What Makes Us Human? in the May issue of Scientific American. There are only tiny genetic differences in our DNA and the DNA of animals. You do not need to change very much of the genome to make a new species.

ive done a little, im pointing out that similarities in DNA dont presuppose emotion. that gives you the problem of deciding where the cutoff is, i mean if a chimp feels emotion can a dog? a rat? a frog? a worm? a paramecium? at what point is something so dissimuliar that we can say it doesnt have emotion? really once you leave our genome our genome, you hit a slippery slope.

If animals are pre-programmed living robots, then why do we use them in research to test pharmaceuticals etc, to be used on humans?

exactly because they are preprogrammed living robots. emotions arent necessary or conducive to accurate results from testing products on living systems. i dont like the cruelty of some things either, G-d made them, its wrong to be unnecessarily cruel, but there are a number of medical experimentations that are necessary for the benefit of human kind. its not as though i beat a pig before i slaughter it, or even let it die slowly, its quick, the hog is happily munching some feed, and the next its gone, it never even knows what happened.

I forgot–what is your professional experience/education with animals?

i grew up on a farm, i raised cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, ponies. the whole nine yards. and i have a broad education.

now, what evidence do you have that an animals reactions are emotions and not programmming?

do you have any?

 

[Marfran]

our first loyalty, is to be to our fellow man, as jesus said the children must be fed before the little dog when the gentile woman asked for him.

its also CCC 2418

**CCC **2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.(1) It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.(2) **One can love animals **(3); one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons(4).

(1) Factory farming: animals suffering and dying needlessly for our tastebuds (there are plenty of healthier and economical alternatives to animal products.)

(2) So no money should be spent on animals? It is contrary to human dignity to cause them to suffer, so we shouldn’t take our ailing pet to the vet??? The Pope has a pet cat by the way. Do you suppose he spends money on his cat??? Buys food for it?? Takes it to the vet??? What exactly does this line mean any way?

(3) Aha!!! One can love animals!

(4) I imagine this means that you should not exchange your child for a puppy (but you can get a puppy and share loving it with your child), or kick your wife out of the house and replace her with a goat…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I would CRY over BOTH commercials. Seriously, your friend doesn’t care about starving children???

i know her very well, and im not sure. she is very emotional over animals. shes not intellectual at all. we are opposites to a large degree.

Everyone who I know who loves animals, have BIG, BIG hearts for both people and animals, and for the whole world/planet. People that I know who do not care for animals, often are also SELECTIVE about the people that they care about, or the groups of people that they care about.

the implication is that a person who doesnt get emotional over animals is a racist? i hope thats not what your saying, because every human being is as exactly important as every other human being.

Our first loyalty is not to our fellow man–it is to God.

i think you know what i meant.

And what about all the food that we feed to farm animals that could go directly to people instead. Feed it to the starving children instead of the animals that we raise for our “luxury” meat. That is your principle, is it not? That people come first? Or do meat eating people come first, and starving children second?

luxury meat? those sharp little teeth at the front of our mouths are to eat meat. its how we evolved to be omnivores. just because we can survive only on vegetables doesnt mean we should, frankly ive tried, and at my size its difficult to take in the necessary calories on a strictly vegetable diet. im sure it acan be done, but it was unpleasant to me. heifer international gives animals to 3rd world families. from a pure effeciency standpoint we should be shipping seed and tractors too.

but there is still the problem of where to cutoff the emotions train, if youu cant cut it off at a paramecium, then how can you at plants. if they suffer its no more moral to eat them.

its off to the diner for a late lunch!

 

[Marfran]

living doesnt seem to matter because i can assert that my roomba is feeling emotions by anthropomorphising its behavior as something more than programming, i dont see any reason to exclude it based on its chemistry.

ive done a little, im pointing out that similarities in DNA dont presuppose emotion. that gives you the problem of deciding where the cutoff is, i mean if a chimp feels emotion can a dog? a rat? a frog? a worm? a paramecium? at what point is something so dissimuliar that we can say it doesnt have emotion? really once you leave our genome our genome, you hit a slippery slope.

exactly because they are preprogrammed living robots. emotions arent necessary or conducive to accurate results from testing products on living systems…

its not as though i beat a pig before i slaughter it, or even let it die slowly, its quick, the hog is happily munching some feed, and the next its gone, it never even knows what happened.

i grew up on a farm, i raised cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, ponies. the whole nine yards. and i have a broad education.

now, what evidence do you have that an animals reactions are emotions and not programmming?

do you have any?

Amimals are not roombas. Roombas can not feel pain or fear or anything else. Animals are not pre-programmed machines. You kill animals–that is your relationship with them–except for your cat–I mean, you have a relationship with an animal that you are not going to kill, I hope… So it is to your ***advantage ***to argue that animals are pre-programmed, albeit living, machines. If you were to think of them otherwise, if you were to truly “love” an animal you could not take its life away. You need to keep your emotional distance from animals–because if you got too close–if you began to care…

Pete, why ***are ***you always in these animal threads? You don’t have to answer me publically–but think about it. If you are content with killing animals, and it doesn’t bother you, why are you always sparring with people who view animals differently? Have you had a major difference of opinion with someone in your “real” life? The friend in your example crying over the animal commercial?

You are looking to find evidence that animals don’t have emotion, are not capable of it–because that makes it easier to kill them?

We can get into some technical arguments–and I am new to this thread and don’t know what’s all been posted but I can assure you that animals are not just pre-programmed machines.

I have worked with individual animals who have posed problems to their handlers/caretakers. I have been quite shocked on several occassions to experience a transference (for lack of a better word) with that animal, that lead me to help understand its behavior and reactions. I hesitate to write this…but I in fact have experienced it. I can not experience this at will–it just happens–only lasts a few seconds–but I actually have felt what the animal was feeling. (This IS not ME projecting on to the animal. What I learned has always been a surprise and IS always helpful.) I figure that God is allowing me insight into what’s going on with this animal so that I can help it, and help the human handlers/caretakers to understand it.

It is often difficult to translate this into words–as these animals do not think in words–in fact, I think that our style of communication (words) actually helps us to deal with many things and helps to diffuse fears and quell emotions. What’s going on inside the animals heads is often pretty intense–they are even MORE connected to their environment, and the stimuli within their environment, than we are who often walk around in a daze and can easily talk away our fears and talk ourselves out of feeling this way or that…

So this is why I don’t eat meat. Animals are not a mystery to me. I know what they feel. And I expect you to NOT believe me. I have been blessed, and I will speak for the animals who can not speak for themselves because a few chromosomes and genomes are in a little different sequence…

 

[Marfran]

luxury meat? those sharp little teeth at the front of our mouths are to eat meat. its how we evolved to be omnivores.

I don’t have any sharp little teeth in my mouth. Speak for yourself. Everyone that I know who eats meat uses a sharp knife and a fork.

heifer international gives animals to 3rd world families. from a pure effeciency standpoint we should be shipping seed and tractors too.

A lot of people have problems with this group. Many feel we should be helping the poor of other countries utilize plant-based agriculture, not Western animal-based agriculture.

 

[distracted]

Animals suffer because God only gave man the gift of immortality.

If animals didn’t suffer, there could be no evolution, no ecosystem, and no way for man to benefit from animals (food, clothing, etc.).

this is proven by the fact that if man doesn’t eat meat he doesn’t live very long… I’ve studied people who lived to beyond 110 and none of them was vegetarian…

There is a psg in the Bible (proverbs, i believe) that says its a shame for a man not to live to be 100.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**CCC **2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.(1) It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.(2) **One can love animals **(3); one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons(4).

(1) Factory farming: animals suffering and dying needlessly for our tastebuds (there are plenty of healthier and economical alternatives to animal products.)

G-d made it clear animals are for our use. why should i eat processed food when i have natural food? so its not needless to most of us, just too people who dont eat meat.

(2) So no money should be spent on animals? It is contrary to human dignity to cause them to suffer, so we shouldn’t take our ailing pet to the vet??? The Pope has a pet cat by the way. Do you suppose he spends money on his cat??? Buys food for it?? Takes it to the vet??? What exactly does this line mean any way?

you can have affection for an animal, you can take care of your pets, but the untoward suffering of our fellow men takes presidence

(3) Aha!!! One can love animals!

sure.

(4) I imagine this means that you should not exchange your child for a puppy (but you can get a puppy and share loving it with your child), or kick your wife out of the house and replace her with a goat…

i imagine it means that given the choice one should prefer his fellow man, animal charities are agood example of money that should go to people charities.

so farr though, you havent answered my question, do you have any evidence for animal emotions over programmed responses?

 

[Marfran]

just because we can survive only on vegetables doesnt mean we should, frankly ive tried, and at my size its difficult to take in the necessary calories on a strictly vegetable diet. im sure it can be done, but it was unpleasant to me…

Now, as I’ve noticed, I find you in all of the meat, animal, and vegetarian threads. There must be a resaon. For me animals are my calling and profession. You are concerned with whether or not they have emotion, or are capable of emotion? Now, most men try to play down *emotion *and accuse the women in their lives of being too emotional. But in the case of animals we need to prove that they have even basic emotion so that we will know how to treat or regard them? (I have some info somewhere on a court case concerning a chimp–I’ll see if I can dig that up.)

And you say you tried to eat a vegetarian diet but it was too difficult? Why would you do that? Was it the girl? The one that cried over animal commercials? Did she leave you because you couldn’t fit into her world? Are you trying to understand her world and the origin of her feelings? Are you trying to build a bridge ot tear one down? If you grew up on a farm and had to kill animals, you undoubtedly have different sensitivities and experiences than someone who grew up in the city. I take it she was a city girl.

If you really want to give that vegetarian diet another swing, I know of some people who would be happy to help you with some filling, healthy plant-based recipes.

Check out: Catholic Answers Vegetarian & Vegan Group

 

[distracted]

Re: Why do animals suffer?

who cares??

 

[distracted]

when humans cease to suffer, then i will care about animals suffering.

In the meantime it is enough that i don’t deliberately run over them when they run out in front of me while driving…

(some people can’t say that, ya know…)