From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:28:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.215443.24645@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article  <1992Dec19.023956.13036@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>> In <1992Dec18.220220.12376@clpd.kodak.com>, Bob Black writes:

[...]

>> 	As for the utility of [Martin's] statement, it is, in fact, a statement
>> 	of a very simple principle...though not the one you've supplied
>> 	in your example.  A better reading would be: sacrifice is maladaptive
>> 	and, if carried to extremes, will result in extinction, which is
>> 	why it's not seen in existing species.  [I'm paraphrasing Martin,
>> 	here, and will welcome any corrections he might offer.]
>
>The key here is the clause "if carried to extremes."  If not carried to
>extremes, then it's not obvious that sacrifice is maladaptive.  In fact,
>it might prove to be highly adaptive if it serves to slacken exploding
>population of the sacrificing species.
>
>Is abortion maladaptive?

    Both sacrifice and abortion are clearly maladaptive from a species
    survival standpoint if either is practiced to the extent that 
    members of the species are not replaced at least 1:1 when they die.

>> 	You assume that the viewpoint of the dog is irrelevant.  In point
>> 	of fact, the viewpoint of the dog is the ONLY relevant consideration.
>> 	If the actions of a dog are seen BY THE DOG to further the species,
>> 	then there is clearly speciesism because the dog is acting to
>> 	benefit his species.  Whether or not it actually IS his species
>> 	which is benefitted, is totally without significance.  It's the
>> 	motivation, not the action itself, which is the determining factor.
>
>Oh, we're discussing speciesist *motivation* not speciesist *behavior*.
>Thanks for clearing that up.

    Oh, please.  You know very well what we're talking about.  Don't
    pull a Russell and substitute cleverness for thought.

>I will exercise caution then - regarding the application of this concept
>to domestic dogs.  But then shouldn't we also do likewise for all other
>domestic animals: domestic cats, domestic cattle, domestic fowl, even
>domestic humans themselves?

    What, pray tell, is a "domestic human?"  Are you implying that humans
    have been bred [by Alpha Centaurians, perhaps] for specific genetic
    traits?  Humans are the result of the evolutionary process; all of
    the other creatures you mention are genetic conveniences specifically
    "invented", if you will, for human ends.

[...]

>But without this ability to identify others of a kind, then speciesist
>motivation becomes irrelevant, because it can't be translated into
>results.

    As I said, the domestic dog is a perfect example of a universal
    behavior gone awry due to manipulation by humans.  We've bred them 
    to be confused...that's not THEIR fault, and it says absolutely nothing
    about Martin's challenge.

>>	[Again, if this is a misreading of Martin's intent, I will
>> 	welcome his correction.]  In the case of the dog, a mistake in
>> 	taxonomy from a "Man-made" creature bred to make just such a mistake
>> 	is hardly a rebuttal of the principle.
>
>You're right in saying it's not a rebuttal of the principle, but it does
>reduce the applicability and destroy the universality of the principle. 

    A semantic quibble if ever I've heard one.  It is true that dogs are
    animals, and it is true that they identify humans as members of their
    own species, sometimes to their detriment, but it is also true that
    they act in a way that THEY believe is protective of their species.
    They are not representative of the animal kingdom any more than any
    other domestic animal bred for human convenience.  If it makes you
    feel good, then take this one species, claim it's representative of
    the thousands upon thousands of non-domestic species and claim that
    Martin's statement has "reduced applicability."  If you can live
    with that kind of intellectual chicanery, then there is no purpose
    served by further debate.

>> >How prevalent do these apparently contradictory individual examples have
>> >to be in order cast reasonable doubt on the speciesist hypothesis?
>> 
>> 	I'm not at all certain that a "Man-made" animal would ever really
>> 	provide definitive evidence.
>
>Including the class of "Man-made" animals known as humans?

    Humans are "Man-made" only because their reproductive activities result
    in human offspring by default.  Your argument would be funny if it weren't
    so clear that you're serious.  Given that fact, it's merely pathetic.

>> >The second claim is now looking more ambiguous.  Is Martin referring to
>> >a straight sum of individual behaviors or to a synergistic sum which
>> >could never be determined by examining individual behaviors?  Is he
>> >simply saying: Those who don't kill themselves stay alive longer?
>> 
>> 	I hesitate to speak for Martin, and encourage his correction, but I
>> 	don't see anything which would defeat proper epidemiology in his
>> 	statement.  However, he is not [as I see it] saying something as
>> 	totally inane as what you've proposed.  He is saying that a species
>> 	cannot survive if it places other species survival ahead of its own.
>
>If it does so ALL the time, then of course not.  If it does so
>sometimes, then maybe or maybe not.  

    He refers to a species, taken as a whole.  As I've said repeatedly, the
    actions of one, or even a few, members of a species in a particular
    situation cannot be construed as representative of every member.  A
    species may survive if one member burns with an inborn desire to feed
    a grizzly with it's flesh; the species will not survive if all members
    are born with the same desire.

    If humans, as a species, always put the welfare of non-human species
    ahead of their own, then the human species is most likely destined for
    extinction at a far earlier time than when it might otherwise occur.


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