In a Leftist society, how would other Planets be treated?

[Rafiq]

Suppose we achieve our International Socialist goal.

The whole world is Socialist. And is now Communist after.


We discover whole bunches of planets with recourses we want, but there is life. Lot's of it.



Is it Okay to be Imperialist outside of Earth? Would anyone care? I mean, we have Marxism on Earth... Would you be a Human-Nationalist(Actually, Internationalist, because Nationalism won't exist.) or would you be against Imperialism among the stars?

Pros: Marxism only stated the better for all of Humanity and Earth. So should we treat intelligent life like we treat fellow humans?

Cons: Well, as Marxists we should be against all forms of Imperialism. Intelligent life must be treated like we treat each other.


I would probably be opposed to it.

[Widerstand]

Interesting question. I think it's closely related to the questions of 'speciecism' and 'socialism in one country', except that 'country' becomes 'planet' here.

In regards to speciecism: The question is obvious: Are non-human forms of live worthy of preservation, compassionate, or even equal consideration? If they aren't universally, and I believe that unless sciences brings about ways in which dead matter can be transformed into nutrition, an universal equal regard for all life is practically impossible, we need to come up with measurements. Anyway, the problems of those have been discussed ad absurdum, but my personal take on the issue of speciecism is that a) the amount of tolerable speciecism is always negatively proportioned to the amount of avoidable speciecism, ergo dependent upon technology, and that b), because of a), as long as society is non-communist, ergo has profit-oriented production, the amount of avoidable speciecism will always be higher than the amount of avoided speciecism ('cos it's cheaper to not care about animals).

To the problem of 'socialism in one country': I think it is inherently flawed to go by 'countries' here, as in currently defined nation states. Rather, I would like to borrow the term 'technate' from technocrats: Socialism in one 'technate', whereas we define 'technate' as any region with the resources and technological means to run a completely autonomous and self-sustained society, whether or not technocratic is irrelevant here. That is very possible. As such, Earth itself would be a massive 'technate', and could be communist even if there are other non-communist planets out there. It would then be logical for us to try and support communist development in the civilizations of said planets, and to defend ourselves against imperialist aspirations of extraterrestrial civilizations. Imperialism on our side is totally unjustifiable. Which of course doesn't mean that colonization of planets without indigenous civilizations is out of the question. But that, again, opens the question of speciecism.

[revolution inaction]

inteligent like or just life? it's a big difference

it's difficult to see what resouches could exist on a inhabitable planet that wouldn't be more available in space or uninhabited planets.

[Widerstand]

inteligent like or just life? it's a big difference

As I said, this brings us to the question of speciecism, which discussing in depth would most likely both be futile and utterly derail this thread. On a quick note though: You can't apply consideration for life based on 'intelligence', without acknowledging that, by using such a definition, severely mentally disabled individuals would be worth less than highly intelligent animals (dolphins, wales, primates, etc.). Therefore I propose that, until the material conditions allow for the elimination of speciecism, as outlined above, we try to avoid as much unnecessary speciecism as possible, while giving consideration to life based on species and acknowledging speciecism as a necessary contradiction.

However, by the time we are able to enact wars in space (eg. when the question of extraterrestrial imperialism arises) and have established global communism (as is the premise of your question), I think we should be able to eliminate speciecism on the basis of 'equal consideration of interests', eg. against all feeling liveforms.



it's difficult to see what resouches could exist on a inhabitable planet that wouldn't be more available in space or uninhabited planets.

Why? For example, what if we were to discover some lifeforms operating on a highly effective energy source, but also ultra-rare, basically non-existent outside that planet?

[Crimson Commissar]

In my opinion, we should attempt to unite with other intelligent species, but we shouldn't really be concerned about un-intelligent species. I would love to see some kind of galactic communist union, made up of many different species. Speciesism against other intelligent beings will only lead to situations similar to what racism has caused within human society.

[Rafiq]

In my opinion, we should attempt to unite with other intelligent species, but we shouldn't really be concerned about un-intelligent species. I would love to see some kind of galactic communist union, made up of many different species. Speciesism against other intelligent beings will only lead to situations similar to what racism has caused within human society.

True. But if we start to be Speciesists, that would eliminate Racism among humans. It would also unite Humanity.

I can Imagine thousands of years of War among planets, if any discovered. World Revolution is possible, a galactic Communist union is probably hundreds of thousands of years away.

[revolution inaction]

As I said, this brings us to the question of speciecism, which discussing in depth would most likely both be futile and utterly derail this thread. On a quick note though: You can't apply consideration for life based on 'intelligence', without acknowledging that, by using such a definition, severely mentally disabled individuals would be worth less than highly intelligent animals (dolphins, wales, primates, etc.).

I do acknowledge this, i think that intelligent animals like dolphins, some of the apes should be given some level of "human rights" and I do think that at a certain level of mental disability a human is not a person, but it would be vary difficult to tell what level, and often they have relatives/people who care about them who would be upset if they were killed.
there are cases now actually where someone is in a persistent vegetative state and they are killed (in this county by having there life support disconnected).




Therefore I propose that, until the material conditions allow for the elimination of speciecism, as outlined above, we try to avoid as much unnecessary speciecism as possible, while giving consideration to life based on species and acknowledging speciecism as a necessary contradiction.

However, by the time we are able to enact wars in space (eg. when the question of extraterrestrial imperialism arises) and have established global communism (as is the premise of your question), I think we should be able to eliminate speciecism on the basis of 'equal consideration of interests', eg. against all feeling liveforms.

i fall to see what is wrong with specicism, assuming you mean it in the normal way. This doesn't mean i think torturing animals i cool, i just think that animals are considerably less important than people




Why? For example, what if we were to discover some lifeforms operating on a highly effective energy source, but also ultra-rare, basically non-existent outside that planet?

i can't think of any energy sources likely to be that powerful that would only be available on a inhabited planet. You dont think we would still be using fossil fuels do you? most likely we will developer working fusion power within the next century, and i have a hard time imagine a power source more powerful than this and also limited to inhabited planets. We'd be talking about the disscuvery of somthing that would redefine physics, and probebly a lot more, the sort of stuff that would seem like magic to us now, and while such a discovery cant be ruled out, it does seem rather improbable.
A special drug might be more probable for your example, or maybe an alien lifeforms could have a brain that is easy for us to adapt into computers, or people just want to live there, or kidnap some life form and use it as a pet, or dinner.

[bailey_187]

if its just animals and organisms, take it. Imperialism isnt taking foreign resources for use.

[Taikand]

Well, life is a complex an rare way of existence, therefore all lifeforms deserve to be treated better than non-life forms. But if we're talking about sapient species, befriend them, study them, teach them! In my philosophical view we are here to understand the Universe, and to teach to others these secrets in an attempt to reach the Ultimate Truth.

[Crimson Commissar]

Well, life is a complex an rare way of existence, therefore all lifeforms deserve to be treated better than non-life forms. But if we're talking about sapient species, befriend them, study them, teach them! In my philosophical view we are here to understand the Universe, and to teach to others these secrets in an attempt to reach the Ultimate Truth.
Yeah. But do you really expect to be able to teach ALL life forms about leftism? You can't explain communism or anarchism to a creature that's only as intelligent as a cow, for example.

[Widerstand]

i fall to see what is wrong with specicism, assuming you mean it in the normal way. This doesn't mean i think torturing animals i cool, i just think that animals are considerably less important than people

Meh. I don't want this to turn into a veganism debate, but overall I think speciecism poses structural similarities to racism and sexism. While this may not be much of an issue currently, it becomes one when we encounter extraterrestrial life forms or biotechnological advance: Where do we draw the line between 'post-humans'/'übermenschen', 'equals' and 'subhumans' and what consequences do these distinctions have?



i can't think of any energy sources likely to be that powerful that would only be available on a inhabited planet. You dont think we would still be using fossil fuels do you? most likely we will developer working fusion power within the next century, and i have a hard time imagine a power source more powerful than this and also limited to inhabited planets. We'd be talking about the disscuvery of somthing that would redefine physics, and probebly a lot more, the sort of stuff that would seem like magic to us now, and while such a discovery cant be ruled out, it does seem rather improbable.
A special drug might be more probable for your example, or maybe an alien lifeforms could have a brain that is easy for us to adapt into computers, or people just want to live there, or kidnap some life form and use it as a pet, or dinner.

Yeah, whatever, I don't care about probabilities. All of these scenarios are possible.

[revolution inaction]

Meh. I don't want this to turn into a veganism debate, but overall I think speciecism poses structural similarities to racism and sexism.

no it doesn't, there are real meaning full differences between animals and people




Yeah, whatever, I don't care about probabilities. All of these scenarios are possible.

probability is extremely important, most of the time we can not say one thing is true and another is not only that one is much more probable than the other.

[noble brown]

no it doesn't, there are real meaning full differences between animals and people


the arguments are all the same. im somehow superior to you, due to some difference, and that gives me rights over you. we are either alive and its not, im intellegent and its not or my skin is lighter then yours.


While this may not be much of an issue currently

i think it should be. if we can open our brains enough to see there is no important difference between humans to give one dominance of another then we should be able to open our brains up some more to see that no difference justifies subjegation of one to another not when all of it is inter-connected.

[9]

Meh. I don't want this to turn into a veganism debate, but overall I think speciecism poses structural similarities to racism and sexism.

I think the only thing that poses similarities to racism and sexism is this argument of yours. Its like this image I saw somewhere recently:

http://i47.tinypic.com/11llr2p.jpg

because, you know, black people and women are basically just like cattle anyway. isn't that essentially what your argument boils down to?

[Crimson Commissar]

The only time speciesism becomes a problem is when we begin to encounter intelligent alien life forms. Hopefully by the time we've discovered them, both humanity and the species we encounter will have matured to the point where we can just co-exist peacefully.

[Widerstand]

because, you know, black people and women are basically just like cattle anyway. isn't that essentially what your argument boils down to?

How the fuck do you read that out of my posts?

There are similarities in argumentation between racists, sexists and speciecists, for example the worth argument: "We can do it, because Jews are less than aryans. We can do it, because women are less than men. We can do it, because animals are less than humans." As I said, drawing the line is extremely unclear. What sets a human apart from other animals? Species alone? If so, does that mean we can treat extraterrestrial species similar to humanity, but say, less intelligent, as inferior and effectively treat them like we treat farm animals now? Where do we draw the line when species alone doesn't suffice? And if we ever live to see the next stage of evolution, would we find it acceptable if they treated us like we treat cattle just because we are a different species?

[Pavlov's House Party]

Ultimately, the goal of socialism is the survival/prolonging the existence of the human race. If we found another planet with resources vital to our survival, I have no moral qualms with taking them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How the fuck do you read that out of my posts?

There are similarities in argumentation between racists, sexists and speciecists, for example the worth argument: "We can do it, because Jews are less than aryans. We can do it, because women are less than men. We can do it, because animals are less than humans." As I said, drawing the line is extremely unclear.

Bullshit. Find me a chimpanzee that can participate in society to the same degree that even a less-bright-than-average human can.


What sets a human apart from other animals? Species alone? If so, does that mean we can treat extraterrestrial species similar to humanity, but say, less intelligent, as inferior and effectively treat them like we treat farm animals now? Where do we draw the line when species alone doesn't suffice?

Societal participation. Can the being in question grok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok), or at least understand on an intellectual level, the concepts and activities humans commonly engage in? Note that actual intelligence isn't the only deciding factor - it may be entirely possible for beings at least as intelligent as us if not more so to have psychologies that are so completely at variance with our own that for them, meaningful participation in human society is impossible.


And if we ever live to see the next stage of evolution, would we find it acceptable if they treated us like we treat cattle just because we are a different species?

The thing is, the human conception of what constitutes being treated as livestock is highly unlikely to apply to other intelligent beings, especially if they are more intelligent than us. For example, it may be that such beings want humans to be healthy and content, but for reasons of their own which we are incapable of understanding - much like how cows don't understand vaccination but benefit from it anyway.

[Widerstand]

Societal participation. Can the being in question grok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok), or at least understand on an intellectual level, the concepts and activities humans commonly engage in?

Does that mean that humans that can't participate in society, for whatever reason, can be subjected to whatever cruelties we please? Also, do animals not participate in society? For example do pets not interact with members of society?


Note that actual intelligence isn't the only deciding factor - it may be entirely possible for beings at least as intelligent as us if not more so to have psychologies that are so completely at variance with our own that for them, meaningful participation in human society is impossible.

This is of course entirely possible. But that still doesn't justify aggression against them.



The thing is, the human conception of what constitutes being treated as livestock is highly unlikely to apply to other intelligent beings, especially if they are more intelligent than us. For example, it may be that such beings want humans to be healthy and content, but for reasons of their own which we are incapable of understanding - much like how cows don't understand vaccination but benefit from it anyway.

I find this argument very estranging, not only because it implies that cows are raised in ways beneficiary to them, but also because it reminds me a lot of the "you can't understand God's reason" argument of religious nuts. In what way would a post-human's understanding possibly obstruct my ability to judge whether or not something negatively influences me?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does that mean that humans that can't participate in society, for whatever reason, can be subjected to whatever cruelties we please?

My argument is based on general capabilities, not specific cases. A typical human can participate fully in society if given the opportunity. A typical chimpanzee cannot.


Also, do animals not participate in society? For example do pets not interact with members of society?

They certainly do, but nowhere near the degree that a typical human does. Dogs do not form political movements or understand the concepts required to do so.


This is of course entirely possible. But that still doesn't justify aggression against them.

Aggression may or may not be justified. It depends on context.


I find this argument very estranging, not only because it implies that cows are raised in ways beneficiary to them, but also because it reminds me a lot of the "you can't understand God's reason" argument of religious nuts. In what way would a post-human's understanding possibly obstruct my ability to judge whether or not something negatively influences me?

As I said, superior intelligence or an alien psychology.

[Ovi]

if its just animals and organisms, take it. Imperialism isnt taking foreign resources for use.
Exploitation is ok as long as we're the exploiters? Socialism, eh? Or the other way around: if any civilization more advanced than us sees any use to our own planet, we're fucked.

[noble brown]

all of history is about the drawing of lines in the sand. we are different from them, sometimes geograpghical, political, racial, or whatever, and from this we then decide that because of our difference from them we are better then them. and this gives us intrinsic rights over them. if history has taught anyone any thing it should be that in every case, every time some line was drawn to justify enslavement or exploitation the line drawers were wrong. it seems to me that its not where the line is drawn but that its drawn period. we had the line drawn at the racial line just recently. just because we think we're so damned enlightened cause we moved the line up some to be more inclusive to the human race but exclusive to anything not human or intelligent or capable of voting meaningfully at the next primaries doesnt make it so. until our compassion is unhindered by exclusivities of our own making we will still be primitives

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Exploitation is ok as long as we're the exploiters? Socialism, eh?

I think it would be more accurate to say that exploitation is OK as long as what is exploited cannot realise its exploitation - minerals and crops have no comprehension at all, and non-human animals don't have the concept. It doesn't make sense for exploitation to be wrong otherwise, unless it's merely an egotistical exercise in salving our own consciences.


Or the other way around: if any civilization more advanced than us sees any use to our own planet, we're fucked.

Quite possibly, but not necessarily.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

all of history is about the drawing of lines in the sand. we are different from them, sometimes geograpghical, political, racial, or whatever, and from this we then decide that because of our difference from them we are better then them. and this gives us intrinsic rights over them. if history has taught anyone any thing it should be that in every case, every time some line was drawn to justify enslavement or exploitation the line drawers were wrong. it seems to me that its not where the line is drawn but that its drawn period. we had the line drawn at the racial line just recently. just because we think we're so damned enlightened cause we moved the line up some to be more inclusive to the human race but exclusive to anything not human or intelligent or capable of voting meaningfully at the next primaries doesnt make it so. until our compassion is unhindered by exclusivities of our own making we will still be primitives

What a steaming load. There are genuine differences between humans and non-human animals. Don't believe me? Where are the animal liberation groups... staffed by animals? You'd think that if non-human animals truly were our equals, it would show somewhere, but it doesn't.

It's also an insult to oppressed humans everywhere to compare their plight with that of animals.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

So just because non-human animals cant contribute and participate in a human society means they don't mean anything? Thats like saying because I benefit and its useful to me then whatever my action whatever it is is okay. A gorilla and an elephant are valuable to their own societies, and humans aren't valuable to their societies, does that mean they have the right to do whatever they want to us if it benefits them? And you say its an insult to compare oppressed people with animals, thats only because people made it that way. Because humans made animals less than their equals is why that seems degrading. But to someone who sees animals and humans as equals it is not seen as an insult. And animals understand that they are being killed and abused. They comprehend the fact that their lives are in danger and that they will suffer. Even squirrels do this. When a car is driving down the road and a squirrel sees it coming, it actually runs out of the way to avoid the danger. When you step on a dogs paw, it reacts by shrieking and biting your foot in self-defense. Mammals such as pigs have emotions and can feel fear and depression. They are self-aware. Some can even recognize themselves in the mirror. They are aware of their own suffering. Animals have differing levels of intelligence. Octopuses are smart enough where they can open their container, slip out and crawl into another container, eats its fish and then crawl back into its original one. Orangutans can do sign-language, cats can count, crows can use tools, bats can locate their young in a group of thousands, the point is that animals evolved enough intelligence to be useful for their life situations while we evolved enough intelligence for our own needs. Its not there fault they don't match up to ours. Each species has acquired enough intelligence for its own particular usefulness, ours just happens to be more advanced. Why should we use this one evolutionary trait to judge a creatures importance? They may not be useful to us but animals have their own purposes to attend to. Intelligent animals like chimpanzees have their own lives to worry about and to be concerned with, why should we interfere?

[black magick hustla]

How the fuck do you read that out of my posts?

There are similarities in argumentation between racists, sexists and speciecists, for example the worth argument: "We can do it, because Jews are less than aryans. We can do it, because women are less than men. We can do it, because animals are less than humans." As I said, drawing the line is extremely unclear. What sets a human apart from other animals? Species alone? If so, does that mean we can treat extraterrestrial species similar to humanity, but say, less intelligent, as inferior and effectively treat them like we treat farm animals now? Where do we draw the line when species alone doesn't suffice? And if we ever live to see the next stage of evolution, would we find it acceptable if they treated us like we treat cattle just because we are a different species?

of course we can do it because fucking mexicans are not the same as cattle. all this stupid arguments are made by people from rich countries who are so alienated from nature that they romanticize it. go to a small village in mexico or algeria and give them that dumb suburbanite talk about the greatness of animals and they will stare at you wide eyed and think you are bad in the head.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So just because non-human animals cant contribute and participate in a human society means they don't mean anything? Thats like saying because I benefit and its useful to me then whatever my action whatever it is is okay.

Nope, that's not what I said. Besides, what is your definition of "meaning" in this instance?


A gorilla and an elephant are valuable to their own societies, and humans aren't valuable to their societies, does that mean they have the right to do whatever they want to us if it benefits them?

It's not a question of rights. It's a question of capabilities. Do animals exploit us for their own ends? They may do - think of all the soft-hearted people who will feed any animal that they come across, and those animals which subsequently learn how to beg food off such humans.


And you say its an insult to compare oppressed people with animals, thats only because people made it that way. Because humans made animals less than their equals is why that seems degrading.

Humans did not "make" animals less able to participate in society - no matter how hard you try you will never be able to teach a typical dog how to read, let alone wax lyrical on philosophy. Any non-human animal you care to name would not be capable of defending itself in court, even if such a thing were allowed.


But to someone who sees animals and humans as equals it is not seen as an insult.

That's because that kind of person is an idiot who cannot tell the difference between reality of biology and the Disneyfied theme park version of nature.


And animals understand that they are being killed and abused. They comprehend the fact that their lives are in danger and that they will suffer. Even squirrels do this. When a car is driving down the road and a squirrel sees it coming, it actually runs out of the way to avoid the danger. When you step on a dogs paw, it reacts by shrieking and biting your foot in self-defense. Mammals such as pigs have emotions and can feel fear and depression. They are self-aware. Some can even recognize themselves in the mirror. They are aware of their own suffering. Animals have differing levels of intelligence. Octopuses are smart enough where they can open their container, slip out and crawl into another container, eats its fish and then crawl back into its original one. Orangutans can do sign-language, cats can count, crows can use tools, bats can locate their young in a group of thousands, the point is that animals evolved enough intelligence to be useful for their life situations while we evolved enough intelligence for our own needs.

I did not deny that non-human animals are capable of feeling pain, or even capable of language and simple abstract thought. But there is so much more to being a member of society than those things.


Its not there fault they don't match up to ours. Each species has acquired enough intelligence for its own particular usefulness, ours just happens to be more advanced. Why should we use this one evolutionary trait to judge a creatures importance?

Because "intelligence" is more than just book smarts - our social qualities are not stored in our kidneys, they are a result of our comparatively enormous brain. Social qualities include compassion and a sense of ethics, which we have developed to a level literally unimaginable by any other animal.


They may not be useful to us but animals have their own purposes to attend to. Intelligent animals like chimpanzees have their own lives to worry about and to be concerned with, why should we interfere?

It depends why we're interfering, I would have thought.

[MellowViper]

Suppose we achieve our International Socialist goal.

The whole world is Socialist. And is now Communist after.


We discover whole bunches of planets with recourses we want, but there is life. Lot's of it.



Is it Okay to be Imperialist outside of Earth? Would anyone care? I mean, we have Marxism on Earth... Would you be a Human-Nationalist(Actually, Internationalist, because Nationalism won't exist.) or would you be against Imperialism among the stars?

Pros: Marxism only stated the better for all of Humanity and Earth. So should we treat intelligent life like we treat fellow humans?

Cons: Well, as Marxists we should be against all forms of Imperialism. Intelligent life must be treated like we treat each other.


I would probably be opposed to it.

I think a truly communist society wouldn't even think twice about it. What we'd do for a less developed planet is help give them advice to get past their nuclear adolescent period that were going through now, and we'd show them how to build an egalitarian society if they wanted to know. I really think all interstellar civilizations are socialist in some way or another. I don't think capitalists make it to the stars. They blow their selves up over competition for resources before that can happen.

[Widerstand]

of course we can do it because fucking mexicans are not the same as cattle. all this stupid arguments are made by people from rich countries who are so alienated from nature that they romanticize it. go to a small village in mexico or algeria and give them that dumb suburbanite talk about the greatness of animals and they will stare at you wide eyed and think you are bad in the head.

If you, or 9, or NoX, would actually bother to read posts past the first mention of a stereotype-loaded word you disagree with, you might actually realize that I was arguing for speciecism earlier.

gtfo my ass.

[revolution inaction]

Does that mean that humans that can't participate in society, for whatever reason, can be subjected to whatever cruelties we please? Also, do animals not participate in society? For example do pets not interact with members of society?


why would thinking animals are inferior to people, which they are, equal cruelty to animals is ok?

[Widerstand]

why would thinking animals are inferior to people, which they are, equal cruelty to animals is ok?

What other justification has there ever been given for cruelty to animals, aside the easily dismantled ones such as "the bible says it must be so!" or "we can't survive without being cruel to animals!"?

[revolution inaction]

What other justification has there ever been given for cruelty to animals, aside the easily dismantled ones such as "the bible says it must be so!" or "we can't survive without being cruel to animals!"?

just because some people use it to justify cruelty doesn't mean that its logical conclusion is cruelty.

[Widerstand]

just because some people use it to justify cruelty doesn't mean that its logical conclusion is cruelty.

But if it was correct, and I don't think it is, on what grounds would cruelty be wrong?

[revolution inaction]

But if it was correct, and I don't think it is, on what grounds would cruelty be wrong?

on what grounds would it be right?

[Widerstand]

on what grounds would it be right?

The usual argument is that they are not worthy to be considered, because they are below humans, and that therefore we need not apply moral categories such as 'cruelty' to them. Ie: "Yeah it's cruel but who cares they are not human."

[revolution inaction]

The usual argument is that they are not worthy to be considered, because they are below humans, and that therefore we need not apply moral categories such as 'cruelty' to them. Ie: "Yeah it's cruel but who cares they are not human."

that's a really shit argument. they can still suffer, i think it matters less when animals suffer than when humans do, but it doesn't therefore follow that it doesn't matter at all.

[Widerstand]

that's a really shit argument. they can still suffer, i think it matters less when animals suffer than when humans do, but it doesn't therefore follow that it doesn't matter at all.

But you do realize that the argument of suffering ('equal consideration of interests') is usually used in an anti-speciecist context, popularized by people such as Peter Singer (in Animal Liberation)? That's exactly what the anti-speciecist debate is about: That other animals do suffer, and that not considering their suffering is indefensible. Of course it is absurd to draw such conclusion as "human life should be sacrificed for the sake of non-human animals", not only because it violates any communist concept of solidarity.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Nope, that's not what I said. Besides, what is your definition of "meaning" in this instance?
Meaning as in importance and life subtance.

It's not a question of rights. It's a question of capabilities. Do animals exploit us for their own ends? They may do - think of all the soft-hearted people who will feed any animal that they come across, and those animals which subsequently learn how to beg food off such humans.
You're comparing a begging animal to factory farming chickens?

Humans did not "make" animals less able to participate in society - no matter how hard you try you will never be able to teach a typical dog how to read, let alone wax lyrical on philosophy. Any non-human animal you care to name would not be capable of defending itself in court, even if such a thing were allowed.
Yes I know an animal can't learn philosophy, read or defend itself in court, the intelligence required for that ability wasn't needed by the species to survive so it didn't evolve it. It's not the animals fault that they didn't evolved to be as complex as us. But just because their lives arent valuable to humans doesnt mean they dont have lives valuable to themselves.

That's because that kind of person is an idiot who cannot tell the difference between reality of biology and the Disneyfied theme park version of nature.
Disney cartoons exaggeratedly personify these animals turning them into what they are not. Biologically animals and us share many traits(especially with mammals) because we are them. We share living characteristics with them such as the ability to reproduce, to consume nutrients and excrete waste materials, to produce body heat, have hair and with females who produce milk, have a neocortex in the brain, can see, smell, hear, have similar brain weight to body weight, the list goes on and on how simialir we are to these other mammalian animals.

I did not deny that non-human animals are capable of feeling pain, or even capable of language and simple abstract thought. But there is so much more to being a member of society than those things.
Who says they have to participate in our society to deserve to live?

Because "intelligence" is more than just book smarts - our social qualities are not stored in our kidneys, they are a result of our comparatively enormous brain. Social qualities include compassion and a sense of ethics, which we have developed to a level literally unimaginable by any other animal.
So because our intelligence is superior to theirs makes us more important? Does that make a mole-rat more important than a tarantula?

It depends why we're interfering, I would have thought.
Why exactly does it matter?

Just wondering.

[Amphictyonis]

Suppose we achieve our International Socialist goal.

The whole world is Socialist. And is now Communist after.


We discover whole bunches of planets with recourses we want, but there is life. Lot's of it.




It depends on what material conditions are like on earth in your scenerio. If the planet was dying or had very little resources for a large population I don't think 'raiding' another planet would necessarily be imperialism.

If all was well on earth I wouldn't support any sort of violent act perpetuated on or domination of another life bearing planet. I'd rather see trade and mutual aid facilitated rather than the old historical patterns repeat themselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By the way, it's a heck of a lot easier if you keep your answers outside the quote boxes.


Meaning as in importance and life subtance.

I think it's quite obvious why humans are more important than other animals.


You're comparing a begging animal to factory farming chickens?

No, I'm not. I did not even mention factory farming. I was pointing out that it's not all one way.


Yes I know an animal can't learn philosophy, read or defend itself in court, the intelligence required for that ability wasn't needed by the species to survive so it didn't evolve it. It's not the animals fault that they didn't evolved to be as complex as us. But just because their lives arent valuable to humans doesnt mean they dont have lives valuable to themselves.

Yes, but so what? I'm sure rats don't like being poisoned, but I'm still going to do it anyway.


Disney cartoons exaggeratedly personify these animals turning them into what they are not. Biologically animals and us share many traits(especially with mammals) because we are them. We share living characteristics with them such as the ability to reproduce, to consume nutrients and excrete waste materials, to produce body heat, have hair and with females who produce milk, have a neocortex in the brain, can see, smell, hear, have similar brain weight to body weight, the list goes on and on how simialir we are to these other mammalian animals.

The differences are more important than the similarities, as I have pointed out.


Who says they have to participate in our society to deserve to live?

Animals don't "deserve" anything. You are still treating them like persons, which they are not.


So because our intelligence is superior to theirs makes us more important? Does that make a mole-rat more important than a tarantula?

Who cares? What matters is that both are not as important as a human.


Why exactly does it matter?

Because we may have damn good reasons to be interfering, like our own health and safety.

[Amphictyonis]

Social qualities include compassion and a sense of ethics, which we have developed to a level literally unimaginable by any other animal.

CmESEHbdtPw

WoP0xSMYcY0

A9Nnm6aMbso

I still eat meat.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

By the way, it's a heck of a lot easier if you keep your answers outside the quote boxes.



I think it's quite obvious why humans are more important than other animals.



No, I'm not. I did not even mention factory farming. I was pointing out that it's not all one way.



Yes, but so what? I'm sure rats don't like being poisoned, but I'm still going to do it anyway.



The differences are more important than the similarities, as I have pointed out.



Animals don't "deserve" anything. You are still treating them like persons, which they are not.



Who cares? What matters is that both are not as important as a human.



Because we may have damn good reasons to be interfering, like our own health and safety.
Its obvious you don't care for animals and it sounds like you won't ever care for animals. I don't think anything I can say will get you to change your mind and this argument is going nowhere as I don't see you convincing me either. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

[noble brown]

What a steaming load. There are genuine differences between humans and non-human animals. Don't believe me? Where are the animal liberation groups... staffed by animals? You'd think that if non-human animals truly were our equals, it would show somewhere, but it doesn't.

It's also an insult to oppressed humans everywhere to compare their plight with that of animals.


apparently i keep going over your head. i apologize.

and i dont know anything bout you but i doubt you can speak for all the oppressed people you certainly arent speaking for me.

i am against all exploitation. all slavery, no matter its form. complete liberation. many ppl have siad this in the past. but there has always been a caveat in there somewhere. everyone except for non-citizens, everyone but indians, everyone but non-property owners. everyone but women and coloreds. so now that we see ppls all over as our equals does that mean that we expect you to jump in front of a bus to save a stranger? no of course not, its a nice thing to do but no one expects you to. y? cause you have a personal, individual value of your life completely divorced from the whole of humanity but we as a whole know the intrinsic value of each individual to the whole. equality does not mean the same or homogeneous. there still exists very important differences between each of us. but yet we know the importance of acknowleding our intrinsic equality. OF COURSE we as humans value ourselves and our species as more important. it would be suicide otherwise. but we val;ue our lives as most important because we are humans not because of some intrinsic value. i in no way think some animal is more important or even equally valuable to my daughters, but thats my perspective. but in the great big picture, the cosmos, there is no difference, period. the cosmos doesnt shudder one bit more if i die then if a tulip does, it cares not for what i care for. this is the value ive been talking about. this in turn is important cause we live w/in the physical laws of the cosmos. so we have to start making the right choices for the right reasons very soon. we cannot continue to ignore the interconnectivity of everything. i just dont think that any form of oppression is justifiable. justified oppresion is a slippery slope.

we must have humans at the top of our concern list. yes we eat meat, we farm, we build. cool. go to it, humans be humans. and by all fucking means, liberate all humans!! and yes us first. but ultimately liberation is a non-clause event. if one fucking clause exists then we arent really liberators, but just a momentary concession. an enlightened society is one in harmony w/ nature. and since we are nature then it means being in harmony w/ self.

[noble brown]

CmESEHbdtPw


I still eat meat.


me too!! good stuff!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i am against all exploitation. all slavery, no matter its form. complete liberation. many ppl have siad this in the past. but there has always been a caveat in there somewhere. everyone except for non-citizens, everyone but indians, everyone but non-property owners. everyone but women and coloreds.

Note that all those examples you gave are all human!


so now that we see ppls all over as our equals does that mean that we expect you to jump in front of a bus to save a stranger? no of course not, its a nice thing to do but no one expects you to. y? cause you have a personal, individual value of your life completely divorced from the whole of humanity but we as a whole know the intrinsic value of each individual to the whole. equality does not mean the same or homogeneous. there still exists very important differences between each of us. but yet we know the importance of acknowleding our intrinsic equality.

The differences between different humans are nothing compared to the differences between humans and other animals. All humans have the potential to be fully paid-up members of society, regardless of their skin tone, sex, or degree of property ownership.


OF COURSE we as humans value ourselves and our species as more important. it would be suicide otherwise. but we val;ue our lives as most important because we are humans not because of some intrinsic value.

Being human isn't an intrinsic value?


i in no way think some animal is more important or even equally valuable to my daughters, but thats my perspective. but in the great big picture, the cosmos, there is no difference, period. the cosmos doesnt shudder one bit more if i die then if a tulip does, it cares not for what i care for. this is the value ive been talking about. this in turn is important cause we live w/in the physical laws of the cosmos. so we have to start making the right choices for the right reasons very soon. we cannot continue to ignore the interconnectivity of everything.

That doesn't follow. If the universe is indifferent, then we are free to construct our own moral systems; if there is nothing objectively wrong with exploiting animals for our own ends, then any kindness we extend to them will be solely for our own peace of mind. In which case, myself and many others are perfectly happy to continue exploiting animals if it means increasing the totality of human happiness, comfort and safety.


i just dont think that any form of oppression is justifiable. justified oppresion is a slippery slope.

Firstly, the slippery slope is a fallacy, and secondly, animals cannot be oppressed. They can have death and cruelty needlessly inflicted on them, but they do not and cannot understand why you are doing so, unlike humans.


we must have humans at the top of our concern list. yes we eat meat, we farm, we build. cool. go to it, humans be humans. and by all fucking means, liberate all humans!! and yes us first. but ultimately liberation is a non-clause event. if one fucking clause exists then we arent really liberators, but just a momentary concession. an enlightened society is one in harmony w/ nature. and since we are nature then it means being in harmony w/ self.

Have you ever seen a predator rip out the throat of prey? Have you ever seen an animal or person writhe in pain as they are consumed from the inside out by parasites? Have you ever seen anybody literally rot away as flesh-eating bacteria slowly but surely dissolve their bodily tissues?

That's nature, being "harmonious". Pardon me for not being as excited about it as you seem to be.

[Amphictyonis]

Noxion just admit it, you cry for dead blades of grass. Like Walt Whitman, like Theodore Kaczynski. The mother Teressa of nature.

But seriously, you may appreciate this woman-

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

[noble brown]

Being human isn't an intrinsic value?..

sure but thats not any justification, which is what i was sayin in the first place, c'mon noxion i know you can do better than this.




That doesn't follow. If the universe is indifferent, then we are free to construct our own moral systems; .

"moral" is a social construct. i wasn't implying some universal normative theory. objectively there isn't a moral imperitive there. i was thinking more practical. if i live on an island, oh lets say easter island, i can make up what ever value system i want. but it be-fuckin-hooves me to make the appropriate choices to ensure the rest of the populations survival. if thats my intent. and if i for some dumbass reason think that its all mine and that we can do what ever we want then guess what happens. a few hundred years later archeologists are wondering what happened to us.of course youlll say they were primatives and were'nt as cool as we are. and youd be right cause ipod touch rules! but alas, we still dont have total mastery of the universe. so we're only degrees above them, a whole lotta degres but we still aint transcended into omnipotence. until we do we gotta play by the rules. the rules are concrete universals. we just dont understand them all yet.



animals cannot be oppressed. They can have death and cruelty needlessly inflicted on them, but they do not and cannot understand why you are doing so, unlike humans..

so if i steal your plasma t.v. its okay as long as dont understand y?





That's nature, being "harmonious". Pardon me for not being as excited about it as you seem to be.

okay... im not saying using medicine or operating rooms is unnatural. its very natural because we are of nature and we cannot do anything unnatural, yet.and if we went and killed off the whole planet that to would be natural. BUT we'd be DEAD!!!! and we all agree thats not what we want. either way it will be the morals in practice that will determine the day. if its to hard for u to accept that all things have an equal intrinsic value then screw it, but u had better come up w/ something, all of us do

[9]

I've only been half paying attention to this thread, but I gotta ask..


but alas, we still dont have total mastery of the universe. so we're only degrees above them, a whole lotta degres but we still aint transcended into omnipotence. until we do we gotta play by the rules. the rules are concrete universals. we just dont understand them all yet.

what does any of this mean? what "rules"? what "concrete universals"? :confused:


if its to hard for u to accept that all things have an equal intrinsic value then screw itthere is no such thing as "intrinsic value", period. you are projecting your religious convictions onto reality.

[Ovi]

I think it would be more accurate to say that exploitation is OK as long as what is exploited cannot realise its exploitation - minerals and crops have no comprehension at all, and non-human animals don't have the concept. It doesn't make sense for exploitation to be wrong otherwise, unless it's merely an egotistical exercise in salving our own consciences.

You're talking from a human point of view. Other animals don't matter if they're less intelligent than us. So something like this

Ultimately, the goal of socialism is the survival/prolonging the existence of the human race. If we found another planet with resources vital to our survival, I have no moral qualms with taking them.
is ok?


Quite possibly, but not necessarily.
If they would think just like Pavlov's House Party, we would all be killed of at the smallest material interest in our own planet. Or we would do the same if we have the opportunity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

sure but thats not any justification, which is what i was sayin in the first place, c'mon noxion i know you can do better than this.

It is a justification, just not one supported by the universe. But since the universe doesn't support any justifications due to having no teleological nature, that's alright then.


"moral" is a social construct. i wasn't implying some universal normative theory. objectively there isn't a moral imperitive there. i was thinking more practical. if i live on an island, oh lets say easter island, i can make up what ever value system i want. but it be-fuckin-hooves me to make the appropriate choices to ensure the rest of the populations survival. if thats my intent. and if i for some dumbass reason think that its all mine and that we can do what ever we want then guess what happens. a few hundred years later archeologists are wondering what happened to us.of course youlll say they were primatives and were'nt as cool as we are. and youd be right cause ipod touch rules! but alas, we still dont have total mastery of the universe. so we're only degrees above them, a whole lotta degres but we still aint transcended into omnipotence. until we do we gotta play by the rules. the rules are concrete universals. we just dont understand them all yet.

What "rules" are these? If they are the laws of physics, we currently have no choice so the issue is moot. Since we've already transcended "the rule of the jungle", I've no idea what else you're on about.


so if i steal your plasma t.v. its okay as long as dont understand y?

Shitty analogy. You're the same species as I am; there is no reason you could invent that isn't nonsense that I could not in principle come to understand for myself.


okay... im not saying using medicine or operating rooms is unnatural. its very natural because we are of nature and we cannot do anything unnatural, yet.and if we went and killed off the whole planet that to would be natural. BUT we'd be DEAD!!!! and we all agree thats not what we want. either way it will be the morals in practice that will determine the day. if its to hard for u to accept that all things have an equal intrinsic value then screw it, but u had better come up w/ something, all of us do

Keeping the planet inhabitable for our own sake says nothing about "intrinsic value". It's merely common sense.


You're talking from a human point of view. Other animals don't matter if they're less intelligent than us. So something like this

is ok?

If they would think just like Pavlov's House Party, we would all be killed of at the smallest material interest in our own planet. Or we would do the same if we have the opportunity.

I can gaurantee you that aliens will not think anything like Pavlov's House Party or indeed any other human.

[noble brown]

what does any of this mean? what "rules"? what "concrete universals"? :confused:.

physics



there is no such thing as "intrinsic value", period. you are projecting your religious convictions onto reality.

funny u should say that. i dont have any religious convictions except that its nonsense. but i understand wat ur gettin @. i mean the intrinsic value that a cog in a watch has to the whole watch. i would say that all those parts have a determinable intrinsic value inside of the system (the watch) only because it has a desired function. the watches desiredfunction (by us) is to keep time. w/out the cog the watch ceases to function. because the system has a desired function the constituent parts have a value relative to this desired function. outside of a system the cog has no value because it lacks a role. so if i go to the junkyard i could pull out any ole thing from any ole car ( a system) cause the cars have ceased to have a desired function, as individual systems, except to be parts of a junkyard for salvage. in re to a car, me saying that its my car and therfore i can do what i want doesnt change the fact of the physical laws you must abide by if you want it to continue to function as transportation. you could pull some shit out but u just cant go randomly pulling out shit w/ out knowing their intrinsic value to the system. gas and a battery, pretty damned important. headlights not so much. and an alternator, well shit you wont even know its gone till the battery dies.

the desired function (by us) of the ecosystem is to sustain at minimum human life right. (not talkin teleological purpose cause who the fuck knows if there is even some ultimate purpose, im simply talkin bout what we expect. ) pulling out or eliminating shit w/out knowledge of what we're doing is pure folly, until we know what a things importance (value) is in maintianing life is we should be much more careful.


Shitty analogy...there is no reason you could invent that isn't nonsense that I could not in principle come to understand for myself.

yes it was and probably not.


It's merely common sense.

i think we're getting somewhere now.


I can gaurantee you that aliens will not think anything like Pavlov's House Party or indeed any other human.

i can gaurantee you that u cant gaurantee that! but it is but most probable.

[Property Is Robbery]

I know this didn't start out as an animal discussion but it's kind of turned that way. The fact is that the brutal animal torture going on in this world is a direct result of Capitalism. I'll use animal testing as an example. Now as any doctor or scientist could tell you over 90% of the results of animal testing are never actually applied to humans, because our systems are very different, why then use this testing one might ask? Well as with many things the driving factor is money, because not only do they not care about the animals but big pharma and other such organizations don't give a fuck about people who mindlessly buy their products either. So because they want money they test on animals, it is an accepted method and you if scientists utilize these tests they can make a lot of profit because animals are cheap and so are the tests. They often even test drugs that are already on the market.

The one thing i don't get is how you can be a leftist who has "morals" but you don't give a fuck if a "lower" life form is suffering. While their intelligence is clearly not parallel to ours they still have a brain and a CNS, which allows them emotions and pain. To just say "who gives a fuck" is apathetic and very bourgeois if you ask me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiLqAjZUd-c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiLqAjZUd-c)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie)

[bailey_187]

The one thing i don't get is how you can be a leftist who has "morals" but you don't give a fuck if a "lower" life form is suffering. While their intelligence is clearly not parallel to ours they still have a brain and a CNS, which allows them emotions and pain. To just say "who gives a fuck" is apathetic and very bourgeois if you ask me.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie)


Im a leftists without morals.

How exactly is the attitude of "no giving a fuck" related to someones relations to the means of production?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know this didn't start out as an animal discussion but it's kind of turned that way. The fact is that the brutal animal torture going on in this world is a direct result of Capitalism. I'll use animal testing as an example. Now as any doctor or scientist could tell you over 90% of the results of animal testing are never actually applied to humans, because our systems are very different,

Actually the opposite is the case, because of common descent - if a substance is tested in rats and complications arise, you can be fairly sure that something similar would happen in humans, because in evolutionary terms humans and rats are quite close.

[Property Is Robbery]

Actually the opposite is the case, because of common descent - if a substance is tested in rats and complications arise, you can be fairly sure that something similar would happen in humans, because in evolutionary terms humans and rats are quite close.

To an extent that's true. Depending on the test however there are many other animals used besides rats and mice. They use monkeys a lot, cats, rabbits, and they like to use beagles because they are passive and no matter what won't attack humans.

But no matter what before they test any drug on an animal it is tested on one human, and then tested on many humans after testing on many animals.

Also they can easily manipulate results to come up with any conclusion they like, as long as they make money they don't care.

[Property Is Robbery]

Im a leftists without morals.

How exactly is the attitude of "no giving a fuck" related to someones relations to the means of production?

Morals isn't the right word. I meant something more along the lines of "empathy"

[Amphictyonis]

Some Buddhist monks will carry a broom to sweep away ants before they sit down. I would hope if an advanced alien culture came to earth they would have the same outlook.

So in the spirit of do unto others I'd say we should have a sort of benign empathy for other less advanced planets. As a materialist though I see relations depending on material conditions....meaning...if earth was dying then it would be expected to see a more aggressive stance on "interplanetary relations".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also they can easily manipulate results to come up with any conclusion they like, as long as they make money they don't care.

And any other scientists (like those working for regulatory bodies such as the FDA or for rival companies) can replicate their experiment and check their results.

[bailey_187]

Morals isn't the right word. I meant something more along the lines of "empathy"

I have no empathy either. Just a cold hearted materialist looking at objective conditions.

[WeAreReborn]

Im a leftists without morals.

How exactly is the attitude of "no giving a fuck" related to someones relations to the means of production?
I find it amusing how you quote him but get the quote wrong. Anyways, How can you be a leftist without morals? You are a Marxist and after the lengthy transition that Marx suggested it would transform into a society with something similar, if not, to a gift economy. The only way such a society could survive would be the morals and wish of well being for other humans. Do not think morals have anything to do with religion, such a conception is inaccurate and often quite the opposite.

[WeAreReborn]

And any other scientists (like those working for regulatory bodies such as the FDA or for rival companies) can replicate their experiment and check their results.
That is true, but the FDA is massively underfunded and often times they just look at their experiments and record keeping and pass it through. I highly doubt they ever replicate the experiment unless some large controversy arises.

[bailey_187]

I find it amusing how you quote him but get the quote wrong. Anyways, How can you be a leftist without morals? You are a Marxist and after the lengthy transition that Marx suggested it would transform into a society with something similar, if not, to a gift economy. The only way such a society could survive would be the morals and wish of well being for other humans. Do not think morals have anything to do with religion, such a conception is inaccurate and often quite the opposite.

thats not Marxism, thats what you in your anarcho-hippy mind think it is

[Omi]

I have no empathy either. Just a cold hearted materialist looking at objective conditions.

You sound like an awesome dude to be friends with:rolleyes:.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Other planets should be treated as what they are; other planets. We would treat them with whatever our scientific observations determined as best.

[WeAreReborn]

thats not Marxism, thats what you in your anarcho-hippy mind think it is
Anarcho-hippy? Lol. I don't see how Anarcho-neo-liberalism would really work out. But anyways, well I guess collectivism but it would be Anarchist is what I meant.

[bailey_187]

You sound like an awesome dude to be friends with:rolleyes:.

I am.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

In a leftist society the economy will be planed to fill all peoples needs and interests without taking more resourcess than what can bereplaced på the planet itselfe.
This have nothing to do with some spiritualistic idea, its about pure sence, if we end up our resources things are going to be just fucked up.
Developing new enviormentaly friendly technology and adapting the society, will be a priority, when it comes to animals i just dont care at all.

[Ravachol]

thats not Marxism, thats what you in your anarcho-hippy mind think it is

If you don't think ethics and materialism are related you don't know the first thing about Marxism. The ethics of collectivism arise from the material need (of the working class) for Communism, just as the ethics of individualism arise from the material need (of the dominant class under Capitalism, the bourgeoisie) for Capitalism.

Saying 'ethics' play no role is just ridiculous, ethical configurations arising from material processes are the foundation of the new order.

[MellowViper]

Hell no. The workers of the rest of the universe would be just as valid and sentient as the workers of the world. If anything we could really help speed up social evolution on other worlds if we achieved this. Imagine a feudalistic state. We could tell them that we don't believe in the King centered religious ideologies they believe in, show them the superiority of our technology, explain how we got to the stars through classless egalitarianism, and inspire a workers revolution on that planet.