From: mike@tessi.com (Mike Ninkovich)
Subject: Re: humans are smarter than ants [was Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?]
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:19:45 GMT

nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:


>You seem to be so close to "getting it", and yet so far.  The
>reason non-human animals must cause suffering in order to be
>adaptive is because the tools they have to achieve that adaptation
>are, as you point out, things like sharp teeth or poisin glands. 
>It is very hard for me to imagine using these tools in ways that
>DON'T harm the opponent.  But the tools humans use for adaptation
>(reasoning, intelligence, ...), needn't injure those against whom
>they are employed.  They certainly CAN be used that way.  But they
>don't need to be used that way.

...and now another county heard from...

Well, here goes:

Nick, your statement `You seem to be so close to "getting it", and 
yet so far,' is tantalizing to me, as well--but from the other side
of the debate. I'd like to discuss this further because this chasm
is what prevents us from understanding each other's position.  Now,
in the following paragraphs, I'm kind of reasoning off the top of
my head.  In no way do I intend to belittle you or your arguments.
I want to reach some kind of an understanding of where you (and 
other folks with views similar to yours) are by telling you where 
I am.  Maybe I speak for other such folks; I really don't know.

It seems to me that no species with "sharp teeth or poisin glands"
forebears from using these adaptive tools. I believe that using 
*all* available adaptive tools in the pursuit of individual survival 
is the bare essence of the evolutionary process. Period. 

Humanity's greatest adaptive tool is intelligence. On an inter-species 
level, you just *may* be able to argue that humanity does not need 
to exploit all of its intellectual resource when competing with other 
species, and so, from a profound sense of fair play, we shouldn't--
because, 

"...the tools humans use for adaptation (reasoning, intelligence, ...), 
needn't injure those against whom they are employed.  They certainly 
CAN be used that way.  But they don't need to be used that way."

You're saying that we should limit or discard pragmatic methods (those 
that may injure "those against whom they are employed") that we've 
developed to aid our species-level survival. These methods are products
of our greatest adaptive tool, intelligence.  These are our "sharp teeth 
and poison glands"--but wait... we're not necessarily supposed to
use them. Why?  Because it's distasteful to our sense of fair play, it 
seems.  We shouldn't use them because we don't have to in order to win
the evolutionary game.  We should just refrain from using these methods
and jump to vaguely defined alternatives that may *only* be as good (but
certainly not better, because if they were demonstrably better, you'd
get no arguments from me, or people like me, I suspect).  These 
replacement methods might not even be as good, either. I mean, that's why 
you're getting an argument on this issue--either that, or the 
scientific community that's engaged in research that relies on animal 
testing is a bunch of base fiends who actively enjoy torturing 
animals on a daily basis.  Or it just might cost too much to do the research 
another way that's equally effective.  But it looks to me that if
replacement methods were as cheap or cheaper .AND. as effective as 
methods that exploit animals, then the only reason that animals are 
still exploited is because people enjoy exploiting them.  In my life, 
I've seen little evidence of this type of behavior, so it'll be
very difficult to convince me that this is the reason.

But, OK, we can win the interspecies game anyway.  What about the intra-
species game?  Remember, as a species we compete against other species,
but as individuals, we compete with other members of the same species 
as well--in fact, the days of the individual struggle against other 
species is pretty much over.  Now we're hammering it out against each other.
In this contest, anyone who does not use every advantage available is
unlikely to win.  I'm not talking about some kind of cultural struggle,
either; I'm talking about things like denying effective medical treatment to 
yourself based on a personal belief.  Maybe the belief is based on 
religious grounds, maybe on grounds that the individual's ethical
principals are violated by using the treatment.  In either case,
this individual is rolling the dice with his/her survival. It should
not surprise such folks if other individuals look askance at this 
practice.  Therefore, choosing to use or not use the fruits of methods
that may have been developed by exploiting animals certainly seems to be 
OK as an individually enforced policy, but not necessarily a publicly 
enforced one.

OK, Nick.  That's my side of it.  Summarized, it's:

    a)  as a species, why deny ourselves a proven working solution 
	to a problem in favor of another, comparatively untried
        solution that might even cost more; and

     b) if an individual wants to refrain from certain products or
        practices, and thereby possibly risk the consequences 
        associated with this choice, that's fine; however, it's folly 
        to assume that others will share this enthusiam.

Now, I'd like to be convinced and I'll try very hard to be objective; but
please bear in mind that reducing suffering, as general principal, is
certainly a noble objective, but that this objective, too, is a priority
not necessarily shared by all individuals.  We've got to face it:  many people
just don't share your ethical concerns to the degree that you might like.

BTW, what's the matter with cookies for breakfast :^)



Mike N.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals