dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/18/86)
Tim Sevener writes: > Then there is, of course, Heinlein's series on the "Methuselah Complex" > in which a secret group of "genetically superior" people who have > secretly crossbred to attain incredible lifespans are persecuted > and envied by the mass of the "genetically inferior". It's interesting that Tim associates genetic good fortune with "superiority", and its opposite with "inferiority". Good fortune is one ground on which humans judge one another as superior or inferior. Another ground is accomplishment, another is ability, and yet another is aesthetic taste. If you can get people to judge you as superior, or at least equal, they will respect you, treat you well and invite you to parties. If, on the other hand, people judge you as inferior, they treat you poorly and snub you. In the case of animals, humans judge animals to be *very* inferior. So inferior, in fact, that most of us consider it okay to kill them for food. In general, superior beings are considered more deserving. Since being judged inferior leads to unpleasant consequences, people try to prove themselves superior by various means: boasting of their IQ scores, their sexual accomplishments, the extraordinary greatness of their stereo equipment, their finer musical tastes, and so on. This is what's curious about the concepts of superiority and inferiority: Why should it be so important to one to demonstrate to others one's finer tastes in music, or that one has a better stereo? Why should such things affect the way we treat one another? And if person A has the more active sex life, while person B has finer tastes in wine, which factor is more important in judging superiority and inferiority, and why? For that matter, in questions of taste, how is it decided which is the "better" class of music that is listened to by the "better" class of people? When people get snobbish about musical tastes, they usually judge their own tastes as superior to those of others. By describing the music somebody else listens to in unflattering ways, they attack the other person's self esteem, as a means to inflate their own. When a question came up as to who should get more pay in an argument in netnews about affirmative action, the attitude of a large number of posters was that education outweighed all or most other factors in deciding who was more deserving. Education is something of which most netnews users have a higher than average endowment. Mere coincidence? Of course, we all know about your typical racist... he/she considers his/her own skin colour as a mark of superiority. Practically nobody thinks that people of some *other* race are superior to themselves. What about the superiority of humans over other animals? Humans are more intelligent. Other animals are faster, others can fly, others are more beautiful. But we consider intelligence to outweigh all these things. Why? Could it be because intelligence is the one thing we have more of than other animals? In short, do we base our choice of the grounds on which we judge superiority on self-flattery? Are the concepts of superiority and inferiority nothing more than self-serving delusions? -- David Canzi "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?"
alang@shark.UUCP (Alan Geist) (09/23/86)
In article <2558@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >Tim Sevener writes: >> Then there is, of course, Heinlein's series on the "Methuselah Complex" >> in which a secret group of "genetically superior" people who have >> secretly crossbred to attain incredible lifespans are persecuted >> and envied by the mass of the "genetically inferior". > >It's interesting that Tim associates genetic good fortune with >"superiority", and its opposite with "inferiority". Good fortune is >one ground on which humans judge one another as superior or inferior. >Another ground is accomplishment, another is ability, and yet another >is aesthetic taste. > >snub you. In the case of animals, humans judge animals to be *very* >inferior. So inferior, in fact, that most of us consider it okay to >kill them for food. In general, superior beings are considered more >deserving. David brings up some very interesting questions and points about human social interaction. However, I feel that his conclusions about "meat eaters" is totally incorrect. A lion does not consider itself superior to antelope, and thereby justify its preying upon them and other prey. Indeed, the lion is probably not capable of such mental activity. And if you believe otherwise, then take the case of a spider. In any case, these animals are preditors because at some point along their evolutionary path, they developed the ability to kill, and found it to be a dependable source of food. Since that point in time, they have been natural born preditors. Fact: They are able to kill because they are better at killing their prey, than their prey are at killing them. In that respect, and that respect only, they are superior. Fact: They use this superiority to obtain food; they are natural born preditors. Humans have exactly the same evolutionary history, as far as preying is concerned. Since the point we started killing for food, we have been natural born preditors; better at killing than our prey; superior at that, and only that respect. There is certainly people out there who do kill because of their believed superiority, but this is a small minority of the "meat eaters" I know. Note: I in no way wish to change the eating habits of anyone. I merely object to people trying to make me eat like they do, because _they_ think they know what is right. Possible question for discussion: Many so called vegetarians (I do _not_ mean that in a derogatory way) I know will not eat air breathing animals, but do eat fish and other water breathers. I realize that some do this for dietary, and not philosophical reasons. But I have had more than one of them critisize me for my meat eating. How do they justify their apparent hipocrasy? And I have also had people who only eat domesticated animals _and_ water breathers criticize me for my hunting of non-domesticated animals. Again, how do they justify their apparent hipocrasy? I have yet to obtain rational arguments on my own (eg. "But fish aren't really animals."). Maybe someone out on the net can help me. Alan Geist tektronix!shark!alang
melissa@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Melissa Silvestre) (09/24/86)
In article <2558@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > >Of course, we all know about your typical racist... he/she considers >his/her own skin colour as a mark of superiority. Practically nobody >thinks that people of some *other* race are superior to themselves. > >-- >David Canzi "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" I'm going to get seriously flamed for this, but: I am white, half Portuguese and the rest a mix of Italian, English, and French. After being at Harvard, then working at MIT for several years, I am forced to come to the conclusion that two ethnic/racial groups seem to have a disproportionate amount of "superior intellect" genes in their gene pools. Those two groups are Jews and Asians. Note that I am neither. In fact, if I ever have children, I hope things work out such that their father is a member of one (or both, but Jewish Asians are rare) of these groups. I believe that the statistics on various tests, both American (like the SAT) and international (I don't know any names but you hear about them in the news a lot) will bear this view out. I believe there is a totally biological explanation, involving isolation of gene pools and so forth, so I don't consider myself a racist in the usual sense of believing in a racial difference out of ignorance and brainwashing. Donning my asbestos suit (that's becoming a really bad cliche around here): -- Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (09/26/86)
In article <1909@shark.UUCP> alang@shark.UUCP (Alan Geist) writes: > >A lion does not consider itself superior to antelope, and thereby justify >its preying upon them and other prey. Indeed, the lion is probably not >capable of such mental activity. And if you believe otherwise, then take >the case of a spider. In any case, these animals are preditors because >at some point along their evolutionary path, they developed the ability >to kill, and found it to be a dependable source of food. Since that point >in time, they have been natural born preditors. Fact: They are able to >kill because they are better at killing their prey, than their prey are >at killing them. In that respect, and that respect only, they are superior. >Fact: They use this superiority to obtain food; they are natural born >preditors. > >Humans have exactly the same evolutionary history, as far as preying is >concerned. Since the point we started killing for food, we have been >natural born preditors; better at killing than our prey; superior at that, >and only that respect. > I think humans actually have a much different evolutionary pattern and background as pertains to food sources than large predators. I don't believe man was much of a predator at all until he developed tools and weapons. Even then many populations of man were largely gatherers or fishers. Even today many cultures eat very little meat except for fish. It was my understanding that man most likely evolved from large omnivores with eating habits similar to those of bears, i.e. gatherers with the occasional fish or small mammal thrown in, also insects and carrion. >There is certainly people out there who do kill because of their believed >superiority, but this is a small minority of the "meat eaters" I know. > >Note: I in no way wish to change the eating habits of anyone. I merely >object to people trying to make me eat like they do, because _they_ think >they know what is right. > >Possible question for discussion: Many so called vegetarians (I do _not_ >mean that in a derogatory way) I know will not eat air breathing animals, >but do eat fish and other water breathers. I realize that some do this >for dietary, and not philosophical reasons. But I have had more than one >of them critisize me for my meat eating. How do they justify their apparent >hipocrasy? And I have also had people who only eat domesticated animals >_and_ water breathers criticize me for my hunting of non-domesticated animals. >Again, how do they justify their apparent hipocrasy? I have yet to obtain >rational arguments on my own (eg. "But fish aren't really animals."). Maybe >someone out on the net can help me. > >Alan Geist >tektronix!shark!alang I thought I might attempt an answer to this because of the fact that I am a semi-vegetarian for what I consider moral reasons. As far as eating fish and perhaps fowl, but not eating large mammals, my main reason is my belief that the more developed nervous systems of large mammals allows them to 'feel' more than fish or fowl. I know this sounds like a very weak reason, but it has power for me. I have always had pets (dogs, cats) and I know how much I thought those animals were able to understand and relate to their surroundings. I strongly believed that they knew what was going on and had at least some emotions. Meat animals (cows and pigs) have generally the same intelligence levels as dogs and cats, in fact pigs are said to be even more intelligent. I therefore cannot justify killing them any more than I can justify killing a dog or cat for food. Many foriegn cultures (Asian in particular) do eat dogs and/or cats and find it strange that Westerners make a distinction between different types of mammals as to which are correct to eat and which are not. After all if you're going to eat pigs, why not eat dogs? I prefer to eat neither. I don't criticize non-vegetarians for eating meat. I criticize them for eating processed meat which someone else killed for them. Nowadays I don't think most people even realize most of the time that they are eating flesh that was cut from the animals they see on tv or when they drive through the country. If a person is going to eat meat they should have to kill it and assume the moral responsibility for that animals death. I think quite a few more Americans would be vegetarians if they had to slaughter and butcher their own meat. In many cases the pre-slaughter treatment of animals is very cruel. For details on this consult the literature of some of the animals rights organizations. I see nothing wrong with your hunting provided you eat what you kill and hunt correctly. I would not do it nor would I encourage anyone to hunt. I find it hard to believe that someone could take pleasure in killing an animal. Again why not shoot dogs and cats, what's the real difference? The problem is that too many 'hunters' are really butchers in disguise. They kill for a head to hang on the wall or something to brag about. They take impossibly long shots, resulting in wounded animals which are often never found and die in agony. A hunter should be prepared to track his kill to ensure a clean death for the animal. BTW, up until about 7 years ago I ate meat without giving it a second thought. Then I read a book called 'Dr. Rat' (I don't remember the author right now, I will find out and post it later). This book described, from the point of view of the animals, a number of situations. Some examples were: a pig on a pork breeding farm, a chicken in an egg farm, a baby monkey in a psychological test lab, etc. Each incident was taken from the actual circumstances and was very true to life. The animals were not given human like intelligence. They were given an intelligence level which was well within the realms of possibility. In most cases they did not understand what was going on, only that they were in pain, both mental and physical. The narrator was a rat in a test lab. After each incident he would try to justify things from a human point of view (after all humans have to eat, they need to know if such and such a chemical irritates the skin, etc.). Unfortunately the justification sounded very weak. In the end the rat was roasted alive by the very humans he was trying to defend. I'm not saying that animals really feel the way described in this book, but I think it's highly likely and on the off chance that they do, I don't want to burden my soul with that horror. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay