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: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:27:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.220342.18516@clpd.kodak.com>, Robert Black writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.002837.21787@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.215443.24645@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>>>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.
>
>The key element is the 1:1 replacement.  As long is this replacement
>level is maintained, there should be no problem (unless population
>counts are already "too high" in which case a short-term lower
>replacement level might be temporarily needed). 

	So?  What's the point?  ANY practice is maladaptive if it results
	in a continuous net decline in the population of a species.  This
	has little to do with Martin's claim, however, which was that a
	species, as a group, would cease to exist if it favored the welfare
	of other species over its own.

[...]

>Relating this back to Martin's original claim that all species are
>speciesist (in motivation): Big deal.  We now see that from a species
>vantage point, a 1:1 replacement rate must be achieved.  If a species
>can achieve this in any way, motivation - speciesist or not - does not
>appear to matter.  A speciesist motivation can help, but it's not the
>sine qua non that Martin implied. 

	Again, you misinterpret what Martin said...as well as what I said.

	In the case of the dog, his motivation was speciesist, his behavior
	was consistent with his perception of species, albeit a perception
	altered by Man.

	In the case of a wild species, the same motivation would, again,
	result in behavior consistent with perception of species, but a
	perception more accurately defined.

	Martin said that a species which consistently puts the welfare of
	a different species ahead of its own will become extinct as a result
	of this practice.  Now this may not seem like much of a "sine qua non"
	to you, but its implications for the relationship of humanity with
	the rest of the natural world are at the heart of the AR debate.

	If humans consistently put the welfare of other species ahead of
	their own, then humans will become extinct as a result of this
	practice.  Ergo, if we insist that the suffering of other species
	outweighs our own, we will become extinct.  Ergo, if we stop all
	animal research because whatever discomfort is involved with the
	non-human research animals is more important than the survival of
	humans, we will become extinct; and until there are equivalent
	procedures which do not require the use of living creatures, this
	postulate stands.

[...]

>Sheesh.  It was an attempt to introduce a wee bit of levity.  Clearly
>it failed.

	No smileys = no levity.  Even WITH smileys, any levity may well be
	heavily dependent on the viewpoint of the reader.

>For the record: domestic human = any human.  The point was that humans
>have the ability to manipulate the reproductive behavior and results of
>other species in ways that tend to overcome the adaptability hurdle for
>those species.  Why wouldn't humans themselves have the same capability
>regarding their own species? Answer: we do have the capability and we do
>exercise it somewhat. 

	Do we really?  I don't think one can say without benefit of
	prescience.  We have, without question, made dents in our progress
	against disease, but this has occurred over a period which is
	truly miniscule, evolutionarily speaking, and Mother Nature (don't
	even bother, Russell) continues to challenge us with disaster and
	pestilence.  As we plug one hole in the evolutionary dike, another
	springs into existence.  We eliminate smallpox, only to turn around
	and be confronted with the spectre of AIDS.

[...]

>So now we seem to be excepting, from Martin's original claim, those
>species whose breeding has been taken over by humans.

	"Excepting," no.  "Allowing for human-introduced errors in species
	perception," yes.

>Why wouldn't the
>breeding of humans themselves also be subject to the same forces? Aren't
>modern humans themselves an "invented" species (albeit self-invented)?

	Did your grandparents compare the characteristics of your parents,
	select a combination which they thought would be acceptable, place
	your parents, naked, in a locked room, and wait for pregnancy to
	happen?  Or did they meet, fall in love for reasons even they didn't
	understand, screw themselves silly, and wind up with a baby boy?

	[Pardon the indelicacy, but I wanted to make a point.]

	Even if the details aren't accurate, I suspect it was more like
	the latter than the former...and one could hardly call that 
	"invention" in the same sense as the breeding of farm animals
	and pets.

>>>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.
>
>Perhaps.  But I don't recall anyone exempting these "invented" species,
>even though I had previously inquired about this possibility.

	As I've tried to make clear repeatedly, no "exemption" is required;
	the behavior is not inconsistent with the DOG'S perception of
	"species."  The fact that a domestic dog considers humans to be
	of the same species is not inconsistent with a speciesist view.

	In point of fact, to the extent that this makes the domestic dog
	dependent on Man, it supports, rather than challenges, Martin's
	theory.

[...]

>Also remember that though we have only discussed one domestic species (dogs),
>there are others.  Yes, they may be a minority of all species.  But
>their percentage of the overall total can be expected to increase if
>humans keep populating the earth, driving other non-domestic species to
>extinction and increasingly taking over the "management" of the
>surviving species. 

	And they will all be dependent upon Man for their survival, and
	they will no longer be self-sustaining species.  Their actions
	will, however, remain speciesist, even if ultimately unsuccessful.

	It's a moot point and a strawman.  Without habitat, NO behavior
	will prevent extinction in the absence of intervention.

[...]

>Humans are "man-made" in another way.  We have devised ways to keep
>alive and to support many individuals of "weaker" genetic heritage. 
>These individuals then reproduce and propagate their genes.  In this
>way, the human race has been and is being altered under the conscious
>and intentional control of humans - not too differently from the way
>domestic species are.  In this sense, the way I see it, modern humans
>are an invented (re-invented?) species. 

	On the other hand, continued existence of some of these otherwise
	handicapped humans may allow the solution to some of these weaknesses
	to survive.  A cerebral palsy victim might be the inventor of a
	genetic "fix" for cystic fibrosis, for example, thus recovering
	the strength of the gene pool.  We may be altering our evolution
	or we may not.  There may be stronger influences afoot; consider
	the smallpox/AIDS example above.

	What is clear is that humans are not [yet] bred for confirmation
	points.

[...]

>I keep mentioning individuals and the response keeps coming back
>(paraphrased):  we're not discussing individuals; we're discussing
>species.  Yet when I asked how one would investigate species behavior
>without examining individuals, the answer was: "Obviously one cannot..."

	I am truly surprised that this is not yet clear.  One may gather
	data from individual members, but one must not judge all members
	by the actions of one member in a specific set of circumstances.
	You MUST remember the example I used which asked about the verity
	of using my family as an indicator of all humanity?  To wit:

	If you observe me to be Caucasian, can you say that all humans
	are Caucasians?  If you observe every member of my immediate and 
	extended family to be Caucasian, can you say that all humans are
	Caucasian?

	One observes individuals, but it is the sum of individual observations
	which is important in assessing a trend.  In order to do this, one
	requires either a very large sample or a small sample which is
	carefully chosen to be representative...a process which, in itself,
	requires study of the entire population (how do you know it's
	"representative" unless you know the makeup of the whole population?).
	This is basic statistics.

>You've already delineated the simple rule for species survival: 1:1
>replacement.  All these other claims about sacrifice and cannibalism now
>appear to be red herrings.  From a species survival standpoint, it
>doesn't matter how the individuals die.  All that's required is 1:1
>replacement over time. 

	Red herring?  How?  If the sum of observations to which I referred
	above shows a species' predilection for sacrifice and/or cannibalism,
	then it is clear that the species will not survive.  Unless you can
	demonstrate a sudden change in attitude which occurs after each
	individual has been successfully replaced, there is no disagreement
	with Martin's ideas.

[...]

>Of course.  The key word here being "always." But this sounds like
>another strawman.  Who has proposed *always* putting the welfare of
>non-human species ahead of our own?

	Then you are back to your discussion with Martin.  When will you
	sacrifice non-human species for research, and when will you assume
	that their welfare is more important than ours?  How will you
	decide that this research cannot produce beneficial results, or
	that this other research can?  How is it possible to foresee what has
	not yet occurred?  Frankly, this sudden retreat to, "I never said
	_always_," sounds like another conveniently fuzzy evasion.  If some
	animal research is to be allowed, then certainly there must be a
	past example which illustrates this: please name it.  Give us an
	example of an animal research project which was beneficial to humans.
	If you cannot, you're waffling.

	This is where I came in, so I'll leave the discussion of THOSE
	questions to you and Martin.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)