Are my fears real or imagined?

[joseph1594]

Have any of you ever heard of "designer babies"? You see, the idea is that parents will be able to pick what kind of traits their child will have in their life, such as hair color, eye color, build, etc. You may be wondering what I'm getting at. Since we live in a Capitalist word, they most likely charge for it. I am willing to bet that if a thing like this comes into fruition, it would be very expensive. What I predict will happen is the bourgeois, with their large amount of money, will be able to create their children with above average intelligence and physical power. Their children would have the potential of being very successful and powerful with their enhanced abilities. However, the proletarians could never afford to do it to their children, resulting in their children being inferior to the bourgeois's children. The proletarian children will never be able to compete with their richer and superior counterparts. This will result in proletarians never being able to move up and the rich being able to country the world. The proletarians would never be able to rise against their bourgeois masters because they would be easily outsmarted. Their power would be absolute.

This is the route of what I call "Capitalist Science". However there is another way. If genetic engineering for their children was to be available to everyone, genetic engineering could make everyone's children complete equals. There wouldn't be the mentally retarded or geniuses (as in people who naturally are extremely intelligent), everyone would be complete equals, and they would always reach where they get through their own merit. This is would of course have to be in a pure Communist society.

My fears may just be imagined, but if they are real, then there will be a grave future. Luckily this wouldn't happen for a while, but research is making rapid advances. I would like a reply from somebody who knows the subject.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have any of you ever heard of "designer babies"? You see, the idea is that parents will be able to pick what kind of traits their child will have in their life, such as hair color, eye color, build, etc. You may be wondering what I'm getting at.

Not at all.


Since we live in a Capitalist word, they most likely charge for it. I am willing to bet that if a thing like this comes into fruition, it would be very expensive.At first, yes. But increasing use and technical sophistication would serve to drive down costs.


What I predict will happen is the bourgeois, with their large amount of money, will be able to create their children with above average intelligence and physical power.1) Intelligence is as much a matter of upbringing as it is of genetics.

2) Thanks to technology, physical prowess matters little in the modern world unless you're some kind of athlete.

Also, there would be physiological costs (as well as the initial economic ones) associated with increased intelligence and physical power - namely, increased energy intake. Building and maintaining bigger brains and muscles costs more energy than baseline equivalents.


Their children would have the potential of being very successful and powerful with their enhanced abilities. However, the proletarians could never afford to do it to their children, resulting in their children being inferior to the bourgeois's children.So what? Are you saying that the proletarians and the borgeouisie never interbreed? Even if genetic engineering never became an affordable option for proletarians (which I am doubtful of), there are vastly more proletarians than borgeouisie and hence inheritance would ensure that proletarians benefit.


The proletarian children will never be able to compete with their richer and superior counterparts. This will result in proletarians never being able to move up and the rich being able to country the world. The proletarians would never be able to rise against their bourgeois masters because they would be easily outsmarted. Their power would be absolute. Until they inbreed themselves to death, at least.


This is the route of what I call "Capitalist Science". However there is another way. If genetic engineering for their children was to be available to everyone, genetic engineering could make everyone's children complete equals. There wouldn't be the mentally retarded or geniuses (as in people who naturally are extremely intelligent), everyone would be complete equals, and they would always reach where they get through their own merit. This is would of course have to be in a pure Communist society. I fundamentally disagree that it's a good idea to have everyone the same, physically speaking. Everyone should be able to have the physical enhancements of their choice for themselves or their children, but enforced equality is asking for trouble.


My fears may just be imagined, but if they are real, then there will be a grave future. Luckily this wouldn't happen for a while, but research is making rapid advances. I would like a reply from somebody who knows the subject.I only have a layman's understanding of the subject, so you may want to take my words with a grain of salt. Having said that though, I don't see anything to be overly concerned about. The very first genetic enhancements will be what they're working on now, related to public health - the elimination of crippling genetic diseases. It's only natural to press for such things to be provided for everyone by society at large. Which means that by the time purely cosmetic enhancements or those that improve physiological properties beyond the human baseline become available, it will be far easier to use the inertia of providing previous genetic enhancements for the benefit of society at large to ensure that new enhancements are also included.

[LOLseph Stalin]

We have actually talked about this alot in biology class. It's a touchy subject. Genetic engineering could be helpful for some things such as getting rid of genetic defects that would seriously hinder a child's development. Of course this could easily be abused too. People could take advantage of the system and start pretty much designing exactly what they want their child to be like. With the advances of science these days it could become a very real possibility and if enough people do it the scientists could begin realizing it's a very profitable business. This would encourage them to charge more and more until finally only the wealtheist of citizens could afford it. This would of course create problems for everybody else the bourgeoisie would become even more in control because their children would be "more capable" because of genetic engineering to make them smarter, stronger, etc. This would make organizing for us more difficult, but it's not really a matter of whether we can organize or not, but a matter of ethics. Should we be allowing people to create the "perfect child"? Should we just be limiting this technology to curing genetic defects before a child is born? Where should the limits be?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

but a matter of ethics.

The only ethical problems with genetic engineering are biological caste systems.(This includes "Rich people have better children.")


Should we be allowing people to create the "perfect child"?

Of course!


Should we just be limiting this technology to curing genetic defects before a child is born?

What's a defect? Is being born not a genius a defect? Compared to Einstein yes. Is being born unattractive a defect? Of course!
Simply being average is a defect compared to the exceptional, and it's our duty to give future generations the best life we can give them.


Where should the limits be?

Alterations that threaten the child's well being or happiness.

[ZeroNowhere]

Eh, the scaremongering around the concept is generally a load of bollocks. For example, the idea that we would suddenly get super-intelligent people... We don't even know yet how and to what extent genes determine the intelligences.


What's a defect? Is being born not a genius a defect? Compared to Einstein yes.
Of course, Einstein developed the theory of relativity as soon as he left the womb.


Should we be allowing people to create the "perfect child"?
Should we ban good parenting? What the fuck.


This would of course create problems for everybody else the bourgeoisie would become even more in control because their children would be "more capable" because of genetic engineering to make them smarter, stronger, etc.
Um, what are they going to do then, wrestle us? Get a slight advantage compared to the fact that the children have more access to educational resources anyways? Presumably they will be able to insult us wittily?

[Yazman]

This will result in proletarians never being able to move up

This has ALREADY happened, even without designer babies. Class mobility is largely a myth.


and the rich being able to country the world.

The rich ALREADY control the world. They have been doing so since the rise of capitalism 300 or so years ago, and since the rise of modern capitalism 100-120 years (approx) ago.


The proletarians would never be able to rise against their bourgeois masters because they would be easily outsmarted. Their power would be absolute.

Their power is ALREADY absolute. But absolute power doesn't mean we can't rise against them. Besides, intelligence isn't jsut something you start off with. It really does hinge on upbringing - some people may find some things easier to learn of course but this doesn't guarantee they will.

Besides - political power grows from the barrel of a gun. a hundred million angry americans will handily defeat a few million rich people and their loyalist troops.

[Coggeh]

Just on the subject of genetic engineering alone i found a decent article written by richard dawkins (yes that gobshite again :p)

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-08-19dangers.shtml



Part of what we have to fear from genetic engineering is a paradox - it is too good at what it does. As ever, science's formidable power makes correspond-ingly formidable demands on society's wisdom. The more powerful the science, the greater the potential for evil as well as good. And the more important it is that we make the right choices over how we use it. A major difficulty is political - deciding who is the "we" in that sentence. If decisions over genetic engineering are left to the marketplace alone, the long-term interests of the environment are unlikely to be well served. But that is true about so many aspects of life.


Hysterical damners of genetic engineering in all its forms are tactically inept, like the boy who cried wolf. They distract attention from the real dangers that might follow from abusing the technology, and they therefore play into the hands of cynical corporations eager to profit from such abuse.


Would this be reason enough to think that GE in a capitalistic world would be a risk ?


Just looking at his example of the farmer in that article it seems this is what he's poking at to a certain degree anyway.

[Glorious Union]

If genetic engineering for their children was to be available to everyone, genetic engineering could make everyone's children complete equals. There wouldn't be the mentally retarded or geniuses (as in people who naturally are extremely intelligent), everyone would be complete equals, and they would always reach where they get through their own merit. This is would of course have to be in a pure Communist society.


lowut? Hell no!

And yes, I have heard of this once on the news a few weeks back.

Don't worry, if something like this does occur I will be sure to kidnap one of those super babies for the revolution and our cause. :D
lol

I would hate for this to happen. Human genetic engineering is inevitable, but if it enhances the elite classes then I say no, it should not be done.

[Coggeh]

Don't worry, if something like this does occur I will be sure to kidnap one of those super babies for the revolution and our cause. :D
lol

Give glorious union a child for 4 years and he'll be a bolshevik for life eh :)

[Coggeh]

I would hate for this to happen. Human genetic engineering is inevitable, but if it enhances the elite classes then I say no, it should not be done.
The workers power cannot be diminished because the bourgeois are 10feet tall and shit bullets lets say .

The whole point of capitalism is that the bourgeois are dependant on workers for their very existence . Workers and only the workers can destroy capitalism because the workers run capitalism .Without workers it would not be possible . All we have to do is stop working and their f**ked for example :)

[Glorious Union]

Give glorious union a child for 4 years and he'll be a bolshevik for life eh :)

Four weeks I'd say. :D



The workers power cannot be diminished because the bourgeois are 10feet tall and shit bullets lets say .


The whole point of capitalism is that the bourgeois are dependant on workers for their very existence . Workers and only the workers can destroy capitalism because the workers run capitalism .Without workers it would not be possible . All we have to do is stop working and their f**ked for example :)


Well, I was assuming along the lines that they would find a way to make themselves and their children super inteligent, then breed a new race of humans designed to be super subservient and physicly strong, and have them work as a police force. Then it is we who are f**ked .

[Yazman]

I think my post shows why the fear is unfounded. Capitalists are already in a position of absolute power and control - there isn't really anything that could be done to augment it because its really pretty much absolute already.

[Coggeh]

Four weeks I'd say. :D



Well, I was assuming along the lines that they would find a way to make themselves and their children super inteligent, then breed a new race of humans designed to be super subservient and physicly strong, and have them work as a police force. Then it is we who are f**ked .
We wouldn't be , we still are in the same power point as we were before because of our position in society . They need us , we don't need them . Their super intelligence or physical qualities which would be used for extra oppression of workers would only speed things up.I'm starting to think this is a real concern for socialists :lol: lol

[ZeroNowhere]

The workers power cannot be diminished because the bourgeois are 10feet tall and shit bullets lets say .
That was be exceptionally awesome, and we should be in full favour of it. Maybe it's a reform demand that actually is worth putting on a platform. It would still be useless, but it would make the whole thing a lot better, even if it was already perfect.


The whole point of capitalism is that the bourgeois are dependant on workers for their very existence .

Workers and only the workers can destroy capitalism because the workers run capitalism .
Not quite, the whole point of capitalism as pertains to the proletariat being the revolutionary class is that it is entirely divorced from the means of production.


Without workers it would not be possible . All we have to do is stop working and their f**ked for example :)
Unless they happen to get us back to work. They can quite easily achieve this through both the carrot and stick. Hell, they only require a few industries to function, and if they can cut us off from food production (with guns), we're fucked. Unless we are to take on the US military, which is the less awesome equivalent of George Bush taking on HAMAS in battle alone with a stick.

[Glorious Union]

Unless they happen to get us back to work. They can quite easily achieve this through both the carrot and stick. Hell, they only require a few industries to function, and if they can cut us off from food production (with guns), we're fucked. Unless we are to take on the US military, which is the less awesome equivalent of George Bush taking on HAMAS in battle alone with a stick.

But even the capitalists arent stupid enough to kill all of their workers. If we can find the courage and simply not work and let them kill us in large numbers, then they would be forced to give up. Of course this would also require that every single person of the workers class become a member of some radical leftist party as well.



We wouldn't be , we still are in the same power point as we were before because of our position in society . They need us , we don't need them . Their super intelligence or physical qualities which would be used for extra oppression of workers would only speed things up.I'm starting to think this is a real concern for socialists :lol: lol


What happens when they (if this is at all even remotely possible) change the human genetic structure so that all lower classed humans are absolutely and completely subservient to the will of some overlord master. It would be like making a whole new race of creatures, and would be slightly similar to the world of the Eloi and Morlocks in HG Well's The Time machine.

[TC]

I am willing to bet that if a thing like this comes into fruition, it would be very expensive. What I predict will happen is the bourgeois, with their large amount of money, will be able to create their children with above average intelligence and physical power.

The bourgeois are already able to create children with above average intelligence and physical strength...via superior nutrition, education, athletics, etc. Health and intelligence indicators, to the extent they can be measured, track with parental income.


Their children would have the potential of being very successful and powerful with their enhanced abilities.

Where have you been living? Are you not aware that rich people tend to have rich parents?


The proletarian children will never be able to compete with their richer and superior counterparts.

And this is different from how things are now, how?


This will result in proletarians never being able to move up and the rich being able to country the world.

Proletarians are already never able to "move up."


The proletarians would never be able to rise against their bourgeois masters because they would be easily outsmarted.

Again, how is this different from today?


My fears may just be imagined, but if they are real, then there will be a grave future.

You seem to project 'fears' of the reality of inequality onto a scienefiction fantasy. In doing so you make a fantasy out of reality.

[Cumannach]

Here's something relevant : I saw a fairly disturbing program on tv recently about Scientists doing work on the brains of rats and monkeys. Although at first I thought it must have been a hoax and the whole program a joke; In the first experiment, this scientist inserts an electrode or something, which he can stimulate by remote control, into the brain of a rat, in the part of the brain that 'stimulates pleasure' apparently. So with this rat wandering around his pen, the scientist would stimulate the pleasure center of the rat's brain whenever the rat, say, turned left for example or climbed up on top of a block or something. And sure enough, the rat grew very find of climbing that block. You can see the implications.

In the experiment with a monkey, he again had implanted something in the monkey's brain (animal rights anyone?) and it seems it was in the motor areas of the brain. Now it was something like this; whenever the monkey would for example, move his left arm and drag his hand left, on a big screen infront of him, a little dot would move left and follow that movement, so the monkey was controlling the dot, playing around with it. Now the device inside his brain would read the electrical signals coming from his brain, and was able to interpret which singals matched to the monkey moving his arm and his hand left say. Next, what they did was to seutp up a little system to make the dot on the screen move whenever the monkey's brain simply sent out these specific electrical signals, read by the implanted device, regardless of whether he actually followed through and moved his arm. Soon, the monkey copped on and was there sitting in front of the screen, not bothering to move his arm at all, but just moving the dot around the screen by thinking about it!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here's something relevant : I saw a fairly disturbing program on tv recently about Scientists doing work on the brains of rats and monkeys. Although at first I thought it must have been a hoax and the whole program a joke; In the first experiment, this scientist inserts an electrode or something, which he can stimulate by remote control, into the brain of a rat, in the part of the brain that 'stimulates pleasure' apparently. So with this rat wandering around his pen, the scientist would stimulate the pleasure center of the rat's brain whenever the rat, say, turned left for example or climbed up on top of a block or something. And sure enough, the rat grew very find of climbing that block. You can see the implications.

Yeah. Rats like pleasure, just like humans.


In the experiment with a monkey, he again had implanted something in the monkey's brain (animal rights anyone?)

Animals don't have rights.


and it seems it was in the motor areas of the brain. Now it was something like this; whenever the monkey would for example, move his left arm and drag his hand left, on a big screen infront of him, a little dot would move left and follow that movement, so the monkey was controlling the dot, playing around with it. Now the device inside his brain would read the electrical signals coming from his brain, and was able to interpret which singals matched to the monkey moving his arm and his hand left say. Next, what they did was to seutp up a little system to make the dot on the screen move whenever the monkey's brain simply sent out these specific electrical signals, read by the implanted device, regardless of whether he actually followed through and moved his arm. Soon, the monkey copped on and was there sitting in front of the screen, not bothering to move his arm at all, but just moving the dot around the screen by thinking about it!!

I believe they carried out a similar experiment, but the monkey was controlling a robotic arm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001116080512.htm) rather than a dot on a screen.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Animals don't have rights.


Animals have rights. Most people recognize this. If someone enjoys torturing animals for entertainment, most people condemn it because animals have rights. If I take an animal and lock it in a closet, forget about it, and it dies, I am guilty of animal cruelty.

You might respond that we should allow people to engage in cruelty to animals. Fine. Then distinguish why we should give humans rights. If you do this by convention, then we have to give animals rights or change our conventions so rights do not apply to them (which we shouldn't). If you argue for humans having innate, indisputable, rights, animals will likely fall under the justification somehow.

Some people argue that an obligation to minimize suffering when using an animal - to have just means with respect to the ends - is what makes animals different. We do the same thing with humans. If I do X, will Y suffer and to what extent? Is X worth the suffering of Y? Rights are circumstances where we can't perform an action because it is wrong. We often violate rights because they only apply in the majority - not all - of circumstances.

When we say "it is wrong to torture an animal for entertainment," we are saying animals have a right to not being tortured. I can't see any real distinction between categorizing behavior as wrong and rights. Rights are just that the potential victim's protection from certain behaviors is justified.

[Cumannach]

Yeah. Rats like pleasure, just like humans.


I believe they carried out a similar experiment, but the monkey was controlling a robotic arm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001116080512.htm) rather than a dot on a screen.

Smart arse. There was more to it than that.

What's interesting about the robotic arm idea is, if they can actually interpret brain activity in such a fashion, even for motor actions, well then it's just a matter of carrying it a bit further to interpret actual thoughts and emotions.

Of course that opens up the possibility of artificially creating thoughts and emotions in people. Hopefully that's a long way off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Animals have rights. Most people recognize this. If someone enjoys torturing animals for entertainment, most people condemn it because animals have rights. If I take an animal and lock it in a closet, forget about it, and it dies, I am guilty of animal cruelty.

Having laws against animal cruelty is not the same thing as animals having rights. I can own a dog, even if I'm not allowed to beat it to death. I can't own a human.


You might respond that we should allow people to engage in cruelty to animals. Fine. Then distinguish why we should give humans rights. If you do this by convention, then we have to give animals rights or change our conventions so rights do not apply to them (which we shouldn't). If you argue for humans having innate, indisputable, rights, animals will likely fall under the justification somehow.We already allow cruelty to animals in certain circumstances, such as animal testing. This justified because it benefits humanity. Beating a dog to death benefits only the sadists who get pleasure from it. Also, a person that tortures animals for fun is likely to present a danger to other humans ("A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosadism#cite_note-3)), and should be discouraged from such behaviour.


When we say "it is wrong to torture an animal for entertainment," we are saying animals have a right to not being tortured. I can't see any real distinction between categorizing behavior as wrong and rights.Then you're an idiot. Protecting something is not the same thing as giving it rights. Certain forests are protected from logging, does that mean trees have rights?


Smart arse. There was more to it than that.

Such as what? Your paranoid fantasies about governments sticking electrodes into everyone's brain?

[ZeroNowhere]

if this is at all even remotely possible
It's not. This is not science fiction.


But even the capitalists arent stupid enough to kill all of their workers. If we can find the courage and simply not work and let them kill us in large numbers, then they would be forced to give up. Of course this would also require that every single person of the workers class become a member of some radical leftist party as well.
You're assuming that they would have to kill all of their workers. See, we're dealing with real people here, with families, children, etc. To expect them to just keep a strike up while others around them get shot and beaten up is somewhat unrealistic. Also, it would require every single worker to support it, as even 80% or so of the working class would probably not be enough. Also, if, say, a general strike were to take place in the US, surely you would expect the poor Mexicans and others to not just let an opportunity for a better life for themselves and their family, especially if wages are raised and unions subsidised, to pass by? The same applies to people with negative wealth and incomes in the US. Also, if troops could secure food sources, are we to expect farmers and others to suddenly give up their lives or allow themselves to be captured? Hell, if that happens, how would everybody get enough food? A few people growing food in, say, their backyard, would certainly not be enough to feed everybody, and starvation would probably be enough to persuade people to reconsider. Unless one were to get the entire army and police on their side too, in which case it could still be defeated by increasing army benefits. And hell, that's even more unrealistic. Not to mention that it could lead to the rise of more private police and armies along the lines of the Pinkertons, taking advantage of the situation. That is, unless we got the entire working class (as well as presumably the lumpen and small peasants) (also the police and army, for those who do not consider them to be working class) to turn into very dedicated socialists. And in that case, a general strike would be a waste of time.

[Cumannach]

...

take a chill pill

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Having laws against animal cruelty is not the same thing as animals having rights. I can own a dog, even if I'm not allowed to beat it to death. I can't own a human.

We already allow cruelty to animals in certain circumstances, such as animal testing. This justified because it benefits humanity. Beating a dog to death benefits only the sadists who get pleasure from it. Also, a person that tortures animals for fun is likely to present a danger to other humans ("A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosadism#cite_note-3)), and should be discouraged from such behaviour.

Then you're an idiot. Protecting something is not the same thing as giving it rights. Certain forests are protected from logging, does that mean trees have rights?

So if a sadist who tortures animals is shown not to be a threat to humans, we should allow him to continue engaging in that activity? Let's have a life imprisoned individual who tortures rats they find in their cell. He is monitored so he cannot harm other individuals in the prison, and he will never harm individuals outside the prison. What about wearing fur? When an animal is suffering of a disease, why do we humanely put it to death? The idea of their suffering bothers us. We could just as leave them to die and not witness it so it is not simply an aesthetic displeasure.

You should never torture an animal.
You should never torture a person.
You should never torture a tree.

The link is being an animal and having the ability to suffer, have desires, interests, as well as other things. There is a clear distinction between animals and trees. People try to distinguish between animals and humans to justify cruelty. All of the explanations I have seen are refuted by counterexamples. When we adopt a communist ideology, we throw away a lot of the justifications we could use precisely because they are used for inequalities between humans. It becomes considerably more difficult to justify cruelty to animals.

I'd also question what exactly makes humans unable to be owned. Rights are something we construct, I think, rather than natural. We decide a universal rule, or right, is profitable for society. Locke says in the state of nature the Harm Principle applied. This is precisely a delusion. People were free to do whatever they wanted regardless of others. It was precisely because the Harm Principle was agreed upon by communities that it became adopted. It has existed for so long as self-evidently positive that we take it for granted as some sort of right. We decided it is a right. We can apply similar reasons to animals or we can not, but if we choose not to, we have inconsistencies when considering the rights of humans with respect to each other.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So if a sadist who tortures animals is shown not to be a threat to humans, we should allow him to continue engaging in that activity? Let's have a life imprisoned individual who tortures rats they find in their cell. He is monitored so he cannot harm other individuals in the prison, and he will never harm individuals outside the prison.

No, because psychologically healthy people don't torture animals for fun.


What about wearing fur?What about it? Gas the animals with nitrogen and they won't feel a thing. The fur is the desired outcome, not the suffering of an animal.


When an animal is suffering of a disease, why do we humanely put it to death? The idea of their suffering bothers us. We could just as leave them to die and not witness it so it is not simply an aesthetic displeasure.So what? That's a salve for our own conscience, not that of the animal.


You should never torture an animal.
You should never torture a person.
You should never torture a tree.

The link is being an animal and having the ability to suffer, have desires, interests, as well as other things. There is a clear distinction between animals and trees. People try to distinguish between animals and humans to justify cruelty. All of the explanations I have seen are refuted by counterexamples.Try sapience.


When we adopt a communist ideology, we throw away a lot of the justifications we could use precisely because they are used for inequalities between humans. It becomes considerably more difficult to justify cruelty to animals.For it's own sake? There's no way I can see of justifying that. But if done in the interest of general human comfort and/or knowledge, fine.


I'd also question what exactly makes humans unable to be owned. Rights are something we construct, I think, rather than natural. We decide a universal rule, or right, is profitable for society. Locke says in the state of nature the Harm Principle applied. This is precisely a delusion. People were free to do whatever they wanted regardless of others. It was precisely because the Harm Principle was agreed upon by communities that it became adopted. It has existed for so long as self-evidently positive that we take it for granted as some sort of right. We decided it is a right.What in the name is all this waffle about? Actually it was implicit in my statement that humans, at least in civilised parts of the world, cannot be owned because there are laws against it and people to enforce those laws.

Next time I'll type slowly for your benefit.


We can apply similar reasons to animals or we can not, but if we choose not to, we have inconsistencies when considering the rights of humans with respect to each other.The only inconsistencies with regards to human rights is the fact that not all humans enjoy them.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So humans can harm animals as long as the harm is beneficial to us for reasons that are normal? Psychological abnormality is defined by difference, remember. Any psychological difference that is outside the mainstream is considered abnormal. Humans could have existed alongside a desire to torture animals for pleasure. In this case, it seems like it is alright to do so. However, I might actually agree with you there.

It is precisely because it is in our best interests to consider animals as having rights (freedom from torture) that we give them rights. That same reasoning applies to humans, and I think we already agree there.

My point is that you are saying we can refrain from considering the interests of animals purely because they are of a different group than humans. This group-preference reasoning could apply to human differences. I could decide everyone without my hair color does not deserve rights. If brown-haired individuals had sufficient numbers and capacity advantages to exploit other humans, we seem to be justified in doing so.

My request is simply for a criteria for why we can arbitrarily distinguish humans and animals but not humans and other humans. People typically use intellect as their first response. However, this entails a capitalist philosophy. Those who can exploit others because of individual advantage have the right to do so.

What criteria makes it alright to distinguish between animals and humans without making unjust distinctions between humans and other humans. Here would be my first attempt on your behalf:

Humans do not exploit each other because a cooperative society of inclusion will result in a greater benefit for even the exploiter. AKA, abolishing slavery is beneficial to the slave-owner as well as the slave. I'm sympathetic to this, but it would require a lot more justification and I'm getting sleepy.

If we consider the rights of individuals whom are advantageous to incorporate into our schema of rights, we have to consider eliminating the rights of humans who are not advantageous. Same problem with capitalism, in some sense. However, we can say that "most" people deserve the same rights and there are simply cutoff points. That might work.

Anyway, my main problem is that I've never seen a criteria for separating animals and humans that is satisfactory when it comes to explaining some of the treatment of animals that occurs. When people do come up with criteria, it usually violates other values that society holds. The values I typically find more important than preserving unnecessary cruelty. Sapience doesn't seem to satisfy this for me. First we have to explain why lack of sapience (if you can consider animals as having that) constitutes no moral consideration while variance between sapience in individuals does not constitute moral difference (which I think communism implies). For me, one of the highest ideals in communist thought is fighting natural inequalities. I treat the stupid man as well as any other because it is simply by chance that I was born into circumstances that allowed me to thrive. Maybe this is misguided, though.