From: young@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should Humans assign status?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:25:14 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In <BvBLy4.MvK@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>In <Bv4JpK.3L5@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>rl> ...let me remind you that I made it clear that I would respect the
>rl> sentience and sapience of all beings, even those that might not
>rl> be "alive" in the conventional sense.
>
>From article <1992Sep29.003252.3604@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> Indeed, you DID say that...and then went on to say that, in the case
>ry> of mammals and birds such differences did not exist, thereby basing
>ry> your judgement of worth IN THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT on similarity of 
>ry> structure.  [See <Bsv4GK.Cw0@wpg.com>]
>
>Wrong, Rich.  I judge actions on the basis of the impact that they
>may have on sentient/sapient beings... not on the basis of similarity
>of structure.

	And why do you limit yourself to the "impact they may have on
	sentient/sapient beings?"  __Because__you__only__recognize__sen-
	tience__and__sapience__as__occurring__in__animals__with__similar__
	physical__structure__.  You've SAID this, don't try to change
	this horse in mid-stream.

	In <Bszov2.E58@wpg.com>, you said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...it won't make much sense for you to turn around and pretend that rats
cannot suffer and that the similarity between humans and rats is a "false
god".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that you value one 
>class of chemicals (ie "life") more highly than other chemicals
>(ie, non-living entities), simply because of similarities between 
>those chemicals and the chemicals found in humans.   

	So what?  I have chosen a line of demarcation with which everyone
	can agree (at least until we get to prions and retroviruses), and
	which can be measured and analyzed.  You insist on using some
	metaphysical criteria ["meaning"] which you can't even define,
	but which requires the presence of the equally metaphysical
	"sentience" and "sapience."

>If it just so happened that all sentient/sapient beings had three 
>eyes, I'd still base my judgments on sentience/sapience, and not 
>on the presence or absence of three eyes.  In such a case, I'm 
>sure you'd try to confuse the issue by claiming that I worship 
>eyes that come in sets of three.  

	Unlike you, I don't claim that you "worship" anything; nor do I
	much care.  What I claim is that sentience and sapience are arbitrary
	criteria upon which to base a system of ethics and morals.

>> ...
>rl> If you have any evidence to support your argument that a carrot 
>rl> would feel pain if I pluck it from the ground, let's hear it.  
>
>ry> What do you mean by "pain?"  A carrot is so dissimilar in structure
>ry> that it would be foolish to assume that its "perceptions" are identical.
>ry> It is NOT foolish, however, to assume that there may be some analogue
>ry> of which we are not aware, and which we would find extremely difficult
>ry> to detect and comprehend.  
>
>Do red-herrings feel pain, Rich?

	[Russell's tactic #105 (#104?): bait with sarcasm.]

	I don't know, Russell, but YOU are clearly feeling some pain in
	this discussion.  [Young's tactic #1: respond in kind.]

>Please present your evidence.

	OK, I'll re-post the second half of the paragraph, which you
	apparently missed:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Clearly, some survival mechanism exists in plants: the increased manufacture
 of tannic acid in oak trees under attack from predatory insects is but one
 example.  Who is to say that the bite of a caterpillar on a leaf doesn't
 cause the oak some "pain" which results in the increased production of
 tannic acid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	And to that I will add that plants can apparently "communicate"
	with each other as well.  About carrots specifically, I don't know...
	but then, that's what this discussion is all about, isn't it: WE JUST
	DON'T KNOW.  The fact that plants alter expression of genes in
	response to touch, that they respond appropriately to survival
	threats, that they communicate, that they use similar charge-transfer
	mechanisms to sense environment, and that we have proteins in common
	with plants which apparently aid in the transfer of sensory stimuli
	should tell any rational thinker that there may be more there than
	meets the eye, and that they can't simply be dismissed because they
	aren't built like humans.

	Now, can we get back to the question(s) at hand?

1. Define "meaning" as you've used it in this discussion.

2. Who, or what, gave you the authority to assign status to non-human
    species?

3. By what absolute, significant-to-all-species criteria do you attach
    ethical importance to the death of some species and not others?

4. Why, if your criteria are not absolute, am I 'wrong' to develop my
    ethics [in this area] using some other criteria?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals