So, in the likely case that you never saw or forgot my standard of morality for killing, it is this:
There are 3 reasons that are acceptable reasons to kill:
1- Self defense (and the defense of others, but only when in a collective 'self' or when protecting greater numbers than you kill)
2- For food, or other absolute requirements for sustaining your own life
3- By unavoidable accident
This standard applies to ALL life. Humans, animals, plants, insects, even bacteria and viruses.
But, I've hit a conundrum now, and my philosophy has failed me, and must be modified.
What about artificial life, specifically the kind that only exists as an information pattern on a computer...
My guiding facts on the subject:
*It is not immoral to delete an absurdly simple program, such as one that just echos 'hello world'.
*It is immoral to delete a fully intelligent and self-aware AI, if there was one.
*Intelligence alone may be a bad moral measuring stick; after all, my existing standard protects plants and viruses equally, and they don't have much if any intelligence, no matter how loosely you define the term.
*The existing standard is not to be modified, it just needs to be expanded to include computer programs, and robotic 'life'.
Advice? I'm really lost here.
I'm drawing close to a true understanding... a kind of enlightenment when I finally finish formulating my opinion of the spiritual and moral world. Since it is unique and new, I can't just take an existing belief system and make it my own, I must forge my own belief system from the scraps of information and intuition I've managed to gather. This is just a small part, but it is one of the more definable stumbling blocks preventing me from understanding.
They did something like this on star trek,once where a computer virus infected the enterprise,i think they were able to communicate with it and reach some kind of resolution.
Another time,data was in the holodeck,doing his Sherlock Holmes,when somehow the holodeck created Professor Morriarty managed to escape the holodeck and get onto the actual ship and demanded his right to life. (I can't remember how this one ended).
Having said all that i don't really have an opinion,for me life is something living and breathing,so i guess if you have to plug it in (A power supply) ,it isn't life.
I guess this is wholly based on fantasy and in what you have seen in movies, particularly A.I. If AI like that existed, then I would agree with you. I'm just finding it hard to believe real emotions could be emulated by computers.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
*The existing standard is not to be modified, it just needs to be expanded to include computer programs, and robotic 'life'.
|
I like this option. Since all the species have been included in your general standard of morality, including plants and animals, then it should extend to anything else in your life that you deem to be "alive". Including simulated life.The problem I see with "deleting" such a program lies in the human concept of "ownership". People tend to think of their creations as "things", which is perfectly normal, in the context of a painting or song or house. But if a creation became self aware, it would cease to be "owned" by it's creator, in my opinion(My parents made me, but they have no right to destroy me, as I am a living, self aware being. Hopefully those morals would apply to artificially created life as well.). I think it would be important to make the distinction that if something like artificial life were created, it would be regarded as a unique and genuine life form, no matter what it's made of or how it was made or even who made it.
Here is a question that may help:
If we were to clone a neanderthal, would your moral conundrum apply to him as well? For all intensive purposes, a cloned cave-man would be just as artificially created as a self aware computer.
You must not forget that this 'being' is created by humans and thus differs from all our definitions of life.
Secondly, how will the program react? Does it values life as much as we do or will it be indifferent? If it has severed it's sole purpose, it will maybe agree with a quick and merciful death.
I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)?
| Roald wrote: |
You must not forget that this 'being' is created by humans and thus differs from all our definitions of life.
Secondly, how will the program react? Does it values life as much as we do or will it be indifferent? If it has severed it's sole purpose, it will maybe agree with a quick and merciful death. |
Isn't it in the end about us, more than about what we created? Possibly the program cannot value life, but we do, and we did give life to the program. If we made it so alive, it could be a killing of a kind to nix the program. Even if we can debate that the program did not feel anything, or does not value life.
Wonder what the moral philosophy would be of creating a program that can kill? Has to have interesting ramifications. | deanhills wrote: |
| Isn't it in the end about us, more than about what we created? |
| Roald wrote: |
| You must not forget that this 'being' is created by humans and thus differs from all our definitions of life. |
We create children too.
Of course, this is the reason I asked about the cloning of a primitive human in comparison. Would we view it as an artificial creation? Or as a legitimate life form, with rights and feelings? | tingkagol wrote: |
| I guess this is wholly based on fantasy and in what you have seen in movies, particularly A.I. If AI like that existed, then I would agree with you. I'm just finding it hard to believe real emotions could be emulated by computers. |
Well, as I said, this isn't about normal human morality, this is about my moral system. And in my system, bacteria are protected, despite the fact that they almost certainly have nothing we could call emotions or thoughts.
| deanhills wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | *The existing standard is not to be modified, it just needs to be expanded to include computer programs, and robotic 'life'.
|
I like this option. Since all the species have been included in your general standard of morality, including plants and animals, then it should extend to anything else in your life that you deem to be "alive". Including simulated life. |
Exactly... The question really isn't about if the software is intelligent or not, the question is, is the software alive or not, and if so, does it warrant equal protection just like the rest of life?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Isn't it in the end about us, more than about what we created? |
| Roald wrote: | | You must not forget that this 'being' is created by humans and thus differs from all our definitions of life. |
We create children too.
Of course, this is the reason I asked about the cloning of a primitive human in comparison. Would we view it as an artificial creation? Or as a legitimate life form, with rights and feelings? |
It isn't really about if they were created by humans or not, my moral system protects ALL life, created or not. The neanderthal you mentioned would certainly be protected under it, information on where he/she came from or who or what created it is not applicable to the answer to the question at all: I just look at the object/program/life form and determine, based on the characteristics of that thing alone if it is protected or not.If the "death" of the computer causes no pain for anyone, I don't see the problem with it.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood?I would have to say that it would be immoral to kill a truly sentient computer program - anything that has enough self awareness to have a concept of the future, can hope and plan for the future, is harmed by the loss of that future.
The big question is how do you determine if a computer program is truly sentient? How do you decide if it's really an AI, or if it's just good at looking like one?
Also, you say that killing a virus is wrong, but all a virus is is a bit of self-replicating data and instructions (in the form of RNA). It uses a host cell to reproduce itself. If you consider a virus to be life, then wouldn't a program (a set of data and instructions) released onto the net that infests a host computer in order to replicate itself be considered a form of life? Therefore, wouldn't it be against your moral code to erase a computer virus from your hard drive, since the 'killing' of that virus is nether for self-defense, nourishment, nor done accidentally?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood? |
Not unless it died naturally, or you needed that wood to survive. There's also the morally tangled possibility of harvesting only a few branches, getting wood that way, but not killing the tree, which can grow new branches.
| Jinx wrote: |
How do you decide if it's really an AI, or if it's just good at looking like one?
|
Is there a difference, essentially? In order to imitate intelligence convincingly at all, you have to have it, at least in some measure.
| Jinx wrote: |
Also, you say that killing a virus is wrong, but all a virus is is a bit of self-replicating data and instructions (in the form of RNA). It uses a host cell to reproduce itself. If you consider a virus to be life, then wouldn't a program (a set of data and instructions) released onto the net that infests a host computer in order to replicate itself be considered a form of life? Therefore, wouldn't it be against your moral code to erase a computer virus from your hard drive, since the 'killing' of that virus is nether for self-defense, nourishment, nor done accidentally? |
If computer viruses are added to the protection of this moral system, then yes it would be immoral to kill them. However, the operating system they attack could also be viewed as life in that interpretation, on a far vaster, more complicated, and more intelligent level than the virus. The operating system's antivirus (immune system) would be justified in killing the virus for self-defense.
Operating systems have a much stranger and more complicated reproductive cycle, but are easily just as alive as computer viruses... | catscratches wrote: |
| If the "death" of the computer causes no pain for anyone, I don't see the problem with it. |
Would this apply to euthanasia in the case of a person who is in a coma and has no family? Nobody would be hurt by it. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| I just look at the object/program/life form and determine, based on the characteristics of that thing alone if it is protected or not. |
Well then I don't see a problem. If you determine that the program/machine is truly "alive", then it should have the same basic rights as the other living things in your scenario. The bigger problem is determining what constitutes "life". I guess you'll have to figure that one out... | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Would this apply to euthanasia in the case of a person who is in a coma and has no family? Nobody would be hurt by it. |
Cute! This one would be a good defense for nixing computer simulated life, virtually any kind of life for that matter. 
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| The bigger problem is determining what constitutes "life". I guess you'll have to figure that one out... |
If it is a problem, then maybe it can't constitute "life" by implication? | deanhills wrote: |
| If it is a problem, then maybe it can't constitute "life" by implication? |
Here's something I got to wondering about in all this:
Say we explored another planet, and found a massive amount of resources; fuel, clean water, metals, etc. The only problem, is that there is a primordial ooze on the planet. It's in the water, on the land, and it is extremely toxic to humans. It emits toxic chemicals into the air, making it deadly for us to breathe. Let's say we know that this ooze is on it's way to developing a primitive brain, but we have the ability to destroy it.
Do we have the right to destroy it, even out of necessity for the resources of the planet?
With a computer program, it is a bit more tricky, and I understand ocalhouns dilemma. In his scenario, he really needs to have a litmus test to decide if the program is what he calls "alive". I think quite a few sci-fi authors have asked this question, and as far as I know, none have come up with a definitive answer. So let's scrap that for a second.
Assume we created such a program, like HAL in 2001. According to ocalhouns terms, he would not have the moral right to destroy it, unless it was absolutely necessary. In the end, life is life, whether it's created naturally or artificially. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| The bigger problem is determining what constitutes "life". I guess you'll have to figure that one out... |
That is the big problem, and I think I need a little help figuring it out...
One theory I'm thinking about that might differentiate between electronic life and not-life would be a program's intended duration... The 'hello world' program has a definite end-point once it has completed its purpose. An AI, an OS, or a virus do not; they're designed to run as long as they can, carrying out the activities they were designed for the whole time.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
Say we explored another planet, and found a massive amount of resources; fuel, clean water, metals, etc. The only problem, is that there is a primordial ooze on the planet. It's in the water, on the land, and it is extremely toxic to humans. It emits toxic chemicals into the air, making it deadly for us to breathe. Let's say we know that this ooze is on it's way to developing a primitive brain, but we have the ability to destroy it.
Do we have the right to destroy it, even out of necessity for the resources of the planet?
|
If the primordial ooze is developing a brain or not is inconsequential. This moral system protects all life equally, regardless of intelligence.
The best thing to do would be to move on to a dead planet, and harvest it for resources. If there were no other planets with the resources close enough, and we had to have those resources to survive, then the best course of action would be to harvest them in only the amounts we need, and while wearing space-suits that protect against the ooze, or just using robotic probes, killing as little of the ooze as possible along the way. If 'terraforming' is what you had in mind, I would consider that completely immoral on any planet that had any life incompatible with an Earth-like environment. | ocalhoun wrote: |
That is the big problem, and I think I need a little help figuring it out...
One theory I'm thinking about that might differentiate between electronic life and not-life would be a program's intended duration... The 'hello world' program has a definite end-point once it has completed its purpose. An AI, an OS, or a virus do not; they're designed to run as long as they can, carrying out the activities they were designed for the whole time. |
One way to know is if the program stopped carrying out that activities it was programmed for, yet continued to operate. Defiance would be a huge red flag for self awareness, I would think. Or if this program changed it's programming. But I think the first sign would be if the program tried to make contact, to communicate with it's creator, without being programmed to do so. If you think about it, all computers have the ability to communicate, they can put words on a screen, or even simulate a voice. If one were to become self aware, or intelligent beyond it's original programming, I think the first thing it would do is try to communicate, maybe by writing new programs of it's own. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| If 'terraforming' is what you had in mind, |
Yes. I couldn't remember the word. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | That is the big problem, and I think I need a little help figuring it out...
One theory I'm thinking about that might differentiate between electronic life and not-life would be a program's intended duration... The 'hello world' program has a definite end-point once it has completed its purpose. An AI, an OS, or a virus do not; they're designed to run as long as they can, carrying out the activities they were designed for the whole time. |
One way to know is if the program stopped carrying out that activities it was programmed for, yet continued to operate. Defiance would be a huge red flag for self awareness, I would think. Or if this program changed it's programming. But I think the first sign would be if the program tried to make contact, to communicate with it's creator, without being programmed to do so. If you think about it, all computers have the ability to communicate, they can put words on a screen, or even simulate a voice. If one were to become self aware, or intelligent beyond it's original programming, I think the first thing it would do is try to communicate, maybe by writing new programs of it's own. |
Well, let me remind you that being self-aware isn't really the threshold to be protected...
Bacteria, after all, have equal protection.
Another standard I'm thinking of may just be level of complexity... How would the complexity of a living cell compare to the complexity of a computer program?Well, self preservation is inherent in all living things. I suppose there could be some way to test this programs ability to prevent it's own deletion.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Well, self preservation is inherent in all living things. |
Are you sure about that?
If genes are the 'unit of survival' as many/most biologists/geneticists seem to think then in any situation where there is tension between the survival of the gene and the survival of the gene carrier (the individual) then self-preservation would go out of the window. We see this quite clearly in animal species that mate before dying (praying mantis, salmon etc)... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Are you sure about that? |
I was speaking more in general terms. As in, if you damage a living thing, it will try to heal. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| As in, if you damage a living thing, it will try to heal. |
That might work as a decent benchmark...This is a difficult one, "what actually constitutes life?" I personally don't believe AI is actually possible (from a programming viewpoint) so no computer or it's software is alive...so I would have no moral problem with deleting it, or just trashing the machine for that matter (especially if it was a Window$ program...but that's another story).
My first thought was that if it can reason (I think, therefor I am) it lives, but that discounts any plant life right off the bat. I don't have any moral issues with killing a plant either, but I do have a problem with the overkill used in killing off plants on a wholesale basis (i.e. the systematic depletion of the rain forests) though.
After reading thru the posts here I am a bit confused...is the main question here the morality of "killing" a piece of software, or "what constitutes life"? Software by nature can not be alive, it's mearly a predefined series of actions and responses (IF, THEN, ELSE, ELSEIF, etc.) it can't think or reason outside of it's given parameters...no matter what the author may claim. It (software) can not add to the quality of life aside from making life a bit easier by way of taking some of the boredom away by doing repetitive tasks or complicated math functions.
A cheap calculator can do that, but I don't know of anyone who won't throw one away, or at least toss it aside, if a better one came along.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Are you sure about that? |
I was speaking more in general terms. As in, if you damage a living thing, it will try to heal. |
Hmm....again I'm not sure about this. Does an amoeba 'heal' ? What about other single cell organisms? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Hmm....again I'm not sure about this. Does an amoeba 'heal' ? What about other single cell organisms? |
Without doing any research, and simply venturing a guess, I'd say that they would at least try to heal. Though I'm not sure. | Vrythramax wrote: |
| After reading thru the posts here I am a bit confused...is the main question here the morality of "killing" a piece of software, or "what constitutes life"? |
The former is the original question. The question about what constitutes life came from wondering how we determine if the software is actually alive, therefor having a right to live in the first place. | Vrythramax wrote: |
| Software by nature can not be alive, it's mearly a predefined series of actions and responses (IF, THEN, ELSE, ELSEIF, etc.) |
You could equally say we cannot be alive, because we are made of nothing but a huge collection of non-living chemical substances. Sounds silly speaking of an organism as large as a human, but what about the simplest single-cell organisms? Just as when these non-living chemicals become life when they form complex, ordered systems, perhaps also these chains of IF, THEN, ELSE, et cetera also become 'life' when grouped into complex, ordered systems.
And again, you bring up the idea of the conscious computer program, but consciousness is not a requirement to be protected by the moral system I have.Then here you go:
If you ever have to ask yourself if it's "morally right" to destroy something, then the answer is most likely "no", whether it's truly "alive" or not. All other arguments are moot if you have to question your morality.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
Then here you go:
If you ever have to ask yourself if it's "morally right" to destroy something, then the answer is most likely "no", whether it's truly "alive" or not. All other arguments are moot if you have to question your morality. |
I don't agree. The question is a consequence of morality not being a simple black and white matter, one has to think about it. Right and wrong are very subjective. So you have to ask yourself about it, and the answer may go through a number of changes during your life time. | deanhills wrote: |
| I don't agree. The question is a consequence of morality not being a simple black and white matter, one has to think about it. Right and wrong are very subjective. So you have to ask yourself about it, and the answer may go through a number of changes during your life time. |
I don't disagree with that. I simply think that if you have any "doubt" or "moral quandary" about destroying something, it's best not to do it at that time. Maybe you will eventually find out that it's OK to delete it, but during the phase of questioning of ones own morals, I think the best decision is not to destroy it until you come to a definitive conclusion. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
Then here you go:
If you ever have to ask yourself if it's "morally right" to destroy something, then the answer is most likely "no", whether it's truly "alive" or not. All other arguments are moot if you have to question your morality. |
Well, not everything should be protected... Once you get into the area of non-living things, the concept of 'destroy' can get very fuzzy... Is a wall something that could be destroyed? But what if we just focus on the bricks in the wall which do not get destroyed...
| deanhills wrote: |
| I don't agree. The question is a consequence of morality not being a simple black and white matter, one has to think about it. Right and wrong are very subjective. So you have to ask yourself about it, and the answer may go through a number of changes during your life time. |
It may go through changes, as it is now. I'm working towards my definitive answer though. It has taken over 20 years, but I'm coming close to having a real understanding of the universe... You'll hear about it soon, I'm sure. | truespeed wrote: |
Another time,data was in the holodeck,doing his Sherlock Holmes,when somehow the holodeck created Professor Morriarty managed to escape the holodeck and get onto the actual ship and demanded his right to life. (I can't remember how this one ended).
|
I remember the episode well. There was a trick played, a simulation within a simulation. The result was that Prof. Moriarty believed he had "escaped" from the Enterprise. Piccard and crew provided him with knowledge and computing capacity allowing him to spend centuries exploring "space".
Moriarty got what he primarily wanted, which was not to be turned off, either temporarily or permanently. Apparently substantial resources were sacrificed to keep him happy. In other episodes, the holodeck has to be turned off or limited in order to conserve scarce resources. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| It may go through changes, as it is now. I'm working towards my definitive answer though. It has taken over 20 years, but I'm coming close to having a real understanding of the universe... You'll hear about it soon, I'm sure. |
I'm happy for you. I fear mine will come in that very last moment of exhaling my last breath. The closest to what I get is that pehaps none of it may have mattered at all. The only point of life is the living of it, not the thinking about it. So the more thinking we do, the more trapped we become. We kind'a get to stand on the sidelines of our own lives. | liljp617 wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood? |
As funny as this may seem at first glance, it is actually the most profound thing said so far. i don't think anyone's fully realized even half the implications of what you've said, liljp617. ^_^; Although, there are a few dancing peripherally around some of the problems. | Indi wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood? |
As funny as this may seem at first glance, it is actually the most profound thing said so far. i don't think anyone's fully realized even half the implications of what you've said, liljp617. ^_^; Although, there are a few dancing peripherally around some of the problems. |
only matters if you consider wood to be living? sorta, i know its alive but its not a person it has no LIFE of sorts, its like a finely tuned clock that seems like its alive and functions but its just a mechanism...killing trees is like destroying a computer. (dont hate)
but if you disagree and think that trees are 'killed' then shouldn't it apply to all organism the act of sitting down means you killed several hundred germs etc...
if i didn't make sense sorry i am worshiping indi in my own way (getting wasted) | Bannik wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood? |
As funny as this may seem at first glance, it is actually the most profound thing said so far. i don't think anyone's fully realized even half the implications of what you've said, liljp617. ^_^; Although, there are a few dancing peripherally around some of the problems. |
only matters if you consider wood to be living? sorta, i know its alive but its not a person it has no LIFE of sorts, its like a finely tuned clock that seems like its alive and functions but its just a mechanism...killing trees is like destroying a computer. (dont hate)
but if you disagree and think that trees are 'killed' then shouldn't it apply to all organism the act of sitting down means you killed several hundred germs etc...
if i didn't make sense sorry i am worshiping indi in my own way (getting wasted) |
The opening post stated clearly that the "rules" mentioned above apply to ALL life.
I have yet to meet a person who says a living tree is not living. What constitutes living to you? Rational thought? An understanding of one's place in time/space? Serving a useful purpose, or purpose at all? Ability to reproduce, capacity for growth?
To me, trees (plants in general) serve as much, perhaps even more, a purpose in the ecosystem/biosphere compared to humans, so I don't see much point in inherently placing humans on a pedestal above them. Of course, that's another thread entirely.
I'm not sure how killing a tree, a living 'entity' with a purpose in the natural biosphere, is at all comparable to destroying a computer, an inanimate object developed from the ground up by humans that does nothing but precisely what it is programmed to do. Perhaps you could elaborate on how they're similar, much less identical? | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood? |
As funny as this may seem at first glance, it is actually the most profound thing said so far. i don't think anyone's fully realized even half the implications of what you've said, liljp617. ^_^; Although, there are a few dancing peripherally around some of the problems. |
only matters if you consider wood to be living? sorta, i know its alive but its not a person it has no LIFE of sorts, its like a finely tuned clock that seems like its alive and functions but its just a mechanism...killing trees is like destroying a computer. (dont hate)
but if you disagree and think that trees are 'killed' then shouldn't it apply to all organism the act of sitting down means you killed several hundred germs etc...
if i didn't make sense sorry i am worshiping indi in my own way (getting wasted) |
The opening post stated clearly that the "rules" mentioned above apply to ALL life.
I have yet to meet a person who says a living tree is not living. What constitutes living to you? Rational thought? An understanding of one's place in time/space? Serving a useful purpose, or purpose at all? Ability to reproduce, capacity for growth?
To me, trees (plants in general) serve as much, perhaps even more, a purpose in the ecosystem/biosphere compared to humans, so I don't see much point in inherently placing humans on a pedestal above them. Of course, that's another thread entirely.
I'm not sure how killing a tree, a living 'entity' with a purpose in the natural biosphere, is at all comparable to destroying a computer, an inanimate object developed from the ground up by humans that does nothing but precisely what it is programmed to do. Perhaps you could elaborate on how they're similar, much less identical? |
lets see a pc is programmed to do precisely what it is meant to do
so is a tree (i haven't seen a true do something TREES shouldn't do)
i want too know how you define a living thing? cause all those things you mentioned can easily be referred too a computer. | Bannik wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Bannik wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood? |
As funny as this may seem at first glance, it is actually the most profound thing said so far. i don't think anyone's fully realized even half the implications of what you've said, liljp617. ^_^; Although, there are a few dancing peripherally around some of the problems. |
only matters if you consider wood to be living? sorta, i know its alive but its not a person it has no LIFE of sorts, its like a finely tuned clock that seems like its alive and functions but its just a mechanism...killing trees is like destroying a computer. (dont hate)
but if you disagree and think that trees are 'killed' then shouldn't it apply to all organism the act of sitting down means you killed several hundred germs etc...
if i didn't make sense sorry i am worshiping indi in my own way (getting wasted) |
The opening post stated clearly that the "rules" mentioned above apply to ALL life.
I have yet to meet a person who says a living tree is not living. What constitutes living to you? Rational thought? An understanding of one's place in time/space? Serving a useful purpose, or purpose at all? Ability to reproduce, capacity for growth?
To me, trees (plants in general) serve as much, perhaps even more, a purpose in the ecosystem/biosphere compared to humans, so I don't see much point in inherently placing humans on a pedestal above them. Of course, that's another thread entirely.
I'm not sure how killing a tree, a living 'entity' with a purpose in the natural biosphere, is at all comparable to destroying a computer, an inanimate object developed from the ground up by humans that does nothing but precisely what it is programmed to do. Perhaps you could elaborate on how they're similar, much less identical? |
lets see a pc is programmed to do precisely what it is meant to do
so is a tree (i haven't seen a true do something TREES shouldn't do)
i want too know how you define a living thing? cause all those things you mentioned can easily be referred too a computer. |
What are trees supposed to do? Sure, they 'abide' by the laws found in biology, physics, chemistry, etc., but they're not programmed in the sense that a computer is. They're not built and programmed from the ground up by a third party with specific intentions in mind when the manufacturing is taking place. They're animate objects that develop by the forces of evolution and nature in general. Seems like a red herring argument anyway...
Before going on, I don't believe there is an absolute, distinct definition of life. I tend to go with the criteria generally provided by biology:
| Quote: |
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
I think it's fair to say that a computer is incapable of most, if not all, of these descriptions of a living organism, and a tree undoubtedly fits snugly. There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes life. I'm not sure a computer would fit into any of them, but people can surely try.
I still have a couple unanswered questions though:
1) What constitutes "living" in your eyes?
2) Could you elaborate on the idea that a tree is no more "living" than a computer?yea i sorta walked into that myself....I know it sounds stupid arguing a tree is not alive
i am a very weird person....
but i am also very open minded and i see things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cellular_life
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
as proof that life may not be as simple as we see it....heck in a universe as big as ours who knows maybe there is a life that is crystalline in nature....
like FIRE a debate we had with a friend where he says that fire also fallows the rules of life, it grows, its reproduces etc but its only matter with no cellular structure....
The Seven Traits of Life
Sensitivity and reactivity to the environment and Capacity for adaption Fire reacts to changes in it's environment. it moves when wind blows, it changes color when it's fuel is changed. it burns in spheres in zero gravity.
Ingestion of substance for energy to function Fire externally (sort of) ingests fuel, and uses it to survive. whent he fuel runs out, the fire 'starves' and goes away.
Reproduction fire can move from one fuel source to another via wind or heat transfer
Respiration fire uses oxygen in it's reactions, and therefore respires.
Emission of wastes fire gives off water and ash as it's products in most cases
Internal Movement ever watch a fire burn? it certainly has internal movement.
Cellular Structure nope (but like i said this one is arguable as we could find non cellular life)
(i should have used fire in the beginning) the reason i picked a pc is because like a tree is is a machine that does what it does the only difference is the cell structure
also regarding the use of the pc most scientist can agree that its possible for artificial intelligence so why not an artificial life form.....?
sry if i dont make sense half the time i talk i have a hard time expressing my thoughts and thinking process too other people....(could be all the drugs i have taken) | liljp617 wrote: |
| Quote: |
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
I think it's fair to say that a computer is incapable of most, if not all, of these descriptions of a living organism, and a tree undoubtedly fits snugly. There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes life. I'm not sure a computer would fit into any of them, but people can surely try.
|
So, a fully intelligent AI, capable of thought at and above the level of a human would not be life, because it doesn't reproduce, metabolize, or grow?
I think the wiki definition there would be better applied to the word 'organic' than 'alive'. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| I think the wiki definition there would be better applied to the word 'organic' than 'alive'. |
That's not just the wiki definition. That's a pretty standard biological definition that can be found in any decent biology textbook. I learned those same 7 things that wiki mentioned back when I took high school biology and then the same 7 things when I took biology in college. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | I think the wiki definition there would be better applied to the word 'organic' than 'alive'. |
That's not just the wiki definition. That's a pretty standard biological definition that can be found in any decent biology textbook. I learned those same 7 things that wiki mentioned back when I took high school biology and then the same 7 things when I took biology in college. |
I'm aware that it is a standard definition... I think it might be misdirected just the same. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Quote: |
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
I think it's fair to say that a computer is incapable of most, if not all, of these descriptions of a living organism, and a tree undoubtedly fits snugly. There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes life. I'm not sure a computer would fit into any of them, but people can surely try.
|
So, a fully intelligent AI, capable of thought at and above the level of a human would not be life, because it doesn't reproduce, metabolize, or grow?
I think the wiki definition there would be better applied to the word 'organic' than 'alive'. |
In my opinion, not really. | liljp617 wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: |
| Quote: |
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
I think it's fair to say that a computer is incapable of most, if not all, of these descriptions of a living organism, and a tree undoubtedly fits snugly. There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes life. I'm not sure a computer would fit into any of them, but people can surely try.
|
So, a fully intelligent AI, capable of thought at and above the level of a human would not be life, because it doesn't reproduce, metabolize, or grow?
I think the wiki definition there would be better applied to the word 'organic' than 'alive'. |
In my opinion, not really. |
so what about fire? it fits in perfectly into the criteria for a living creature....apart from being organic...unless u think being organic is what makes you alive | Bannik wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | I'm having trouble with only 3 acceptable reasons to kill. Frankly I enjoy my desk, chairs, and table...things had to be killed to get these. Should no one have these things (among others)? |
There are three reasons you could morally have these things in my system.
1- They are absolutely essential to your survival.
2- They are made from non-living things... metal tables, plastic and synthetic fabric chairs...
3- they are made from living things that died of natural causes, or for one of the other valid reasons. |
So no wood? |
As funny as this may seem at first glance, it is actually the most profound thing said so far. i don't think anyone's fully realized even half the implications of what you've said, liljp617. ^_^; Although, there are a few dancing peripherally around some of the problems. |
only matters if you consider wood to be living? sorta, i know its alive but its not a person it has no LIFE of sorts, its like a finely tuned clock that seems like its alive and functions but its just a mechanism...killing trees is like destroying a computer. (dont hate)
but if you disagree and think that trees are 'killed' then shouldn't it apply to all organism the act of sitting down means you killed several hundred germs etc...
if i didn't make sense sorry i am worshiping indi in my own way (getting wasted) |
Oh, it made sense - it's just that you're looking in the wrong place. ^_^; i was vague when i made that comment because i was doing a little worshipping myself at the time, but the key problem isn't about figuring out whether wood is (or was) alive. When liljp617 made that comment, he pointed out the problem that you noticed, too: life is everywhere, especially if you're really liberal with what you define as life. Whether it's the trees wood comes from, or the germs you kill by sitting down... it's all alive. By the very act of living - even if you don't sit down, even if you don't move - you're killing millions and millions of things.
Why is it OK to kill millions and millions of living things to live yourself? Well, ocalhoun - going by his 3 reasons above, could only turn to 1 or 3. 3 strikes me as a little silly - they didn't die from "natural causes", they died because you killed them by breathing, eating, standing, or whatever when they got your way... and if that's "natural" then i could argue that a person i ran over with my car died of "natural causes" because i was just driving and they got in my way, or the person that i stabbed died of "natural causes" because i was just pushing my knife forward and they were standing in the way.
So that leaves 1. Absolutely essential to survival. Is it "absolutely essential" to kill millions of bacteria to survive? Well... no, not really in most cases... you can always spare those bacteria by sitting somewhere else (where you'll kill other bacteria). To kill those particular bacteria, you have to say that some bacteria have to do so i live, and it's going to be you guys. But... isn't the reverse true? When you're about to sit down on them... isn't it "absolutely essential" for the bacteria to kill you to survive? Of course... you're a lot bigger, so they'll probably fail. Which means that the only reason you're alive is that you were stronger. Which means that... ultimately... rule 1 boils down to "might makes right: i choose which bacteria i want to kill and then kill them, and they're powerless to chose otherwise or stop me". Not quite as enlightened when you put it that way, hm?
Furthermore, i'm going to assume you don't really make much attempt in practise to make sure that you sit where the least bacteria are... you sit wherever the hell you want to sit, right? i'm guessing you've never looking in to what kind of bacteria exists where so that you can prefer to sit on bacteria that might be a danger to other forms of life rather than bacteria that might help other forms of life. So rule 1 gets even worse: "might makes right: i chose which bacteria i want to kill based only on what i want - not on what will kill the fewest bacteria or the 'worst' bacteria - and nuts to the bacteria".
See... the problem isn't in determining what is alive and what is not. The problem is deeper... whether he wants to admit it or not, ocalhoun is putting subjective value on different kinds of life. Saying "all life is equal"... doesn't work. | Indi wrote: |
Oh, it made sense - it's just that you're looking in the wrong place. ^_^; i was vague when i made that comment because i was doing a little worshipping myself at the time, but the key problem isn't about figuring out whether wood is (or was) alive. When liljp617 made that comment, he pointed out the problem that you noticed, too: life is everywhere, especially if you're really liberal with what you define as life. Whether it's the trees wood comes from, or the germs you kill by sitting down... it's all alive. By the very act of living - even if you don't sit down, even if you don't move - you're killing millions and millions of things.
Why is it OK to kill millions and millions of living things to live yourself? Well, ocalhoun - going by his 3 reasons above, could only turn to 1 or 3. 3 strikes me as a little silly - they didn't die from "natural causes", they died because you killed them by breathing, eating, standing, or whatever when they got your way... and if that's "natural" then i could argue that a person i ran over with my car died of "natural causes" because i was just driving and they got in my way, or the person that i stabbed died of "natural causes" because i was just pushing my knife forward and they were standing in the way.
So that leaves 1. Absolutely essential to survival. Is it "absolutely essential" to kill millions of bacteria to survive? Well... no, not really in most cases... you can always spare those bacteria by sitting somewhere else (where you'll kill other bacteria). To kill those particular bacteria, you have to say that some bacteria have to do so i live, and it's going to be you guys. But... isn't the reverse true? When you're about to sit down on them... isn't it "absolutely essential" for the bacteria to kill you to survive? Of course... you're a lot bigger, so they'll probably fail. Which means that the only reason you're alive is that you were stronger. Which means that... ultimately... rule 1 boils down to "might makes right: i choose which bacteria i want to kill and then kill them, and they're powerless to chose otherwise or stop me". Not quite as enlightened when you put it that way, hm?
Furthermore, i'm going to assume you don't really make much attempt in practise to make sure that you sit where the least bacteria are... you sit wherever the hell you want to sit, right? i'm guessing you've never looking in to what kind of bacteria exists where so that you can prefer to sit on bacteria that might be a danger to other forms of life rather than bacteria that might help other forms of life. So rule 1 gets even worse: "might makes right: i chose which bacteria i want to kill based only on what i want - not on what will kill the fewest bacteria or the 'worst' bacteria - and nuts to the bacteria".
See... the problem isn't in determining what is alive and what is not. The problem is deeper... whether he wants to admit it or not, ocalhoun is putting subjective value on different kinds of life. Saying "all life is equal"... doesn't work. |
The bacteria you kill by sitting down would fall into the category of 'unavoidable accident'. (As might that person who you ran over with your car.) (The person 'standing in the way of the knife' though, would be an avoidable accident, and immoral.)
The ones killed when you breathe are partly killed by accident, and partly in self-defense.
And, I'm sorry, but I consider killing tiny creatures I can't even see, merely by my existence and movement to be an unavoidable accident, no matter the concentrations or composition of the groups they are in.
If, however, there were many insects all over the place (which I could see), I would make every attempt to smash as few of them as possible. (Deliberately killing only those that pose a threat of some kind to me.)
Taking the example to a new analogy, I'm forced to land a space ship in a crowded city (it is malfunctioning, and a crash landing in the city is unavoidable)... If I can figure out where they are, I'll try to land in one of the least crowded parts of it. If I can't tell which parts are the least crowded, I'll just have to land where I can, and hope for the best. Either way, the exact same principles apply as to the unfortunate bacteria (or insects) crushed when I sit down. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| The bacteria you kill by sitting down would fall into the category of 'unavoidable accident'. (As might that person who you ran over with your car.) |
Only if you redefine "unavoidable" in a rather self-serving way. ^_^; In point of fact, killing those bacteria could be avoided by simply not sitting, or by sitting somewhere else. "Unavoidable" means "impossible to avoid" not "inconvenient to avoid".
| ocalhoun wrote: |
And, I'm sorry, but I consider killing tiny creatures I can't even see, merely by my existence and movement to be an unavoidable accident, no matter the concentrations or composition of the groups they are in.
If, however, there were many insects all over the place (which I could see), I would make every attempt to smash as few of them as possible. (Deliberately killing only those that pose a threat of some kind to me.)
Taking the example to a new analogy, I'm forced to land a space ship in a crowded city (it is malfunctioning, and a crash landing in the city is unavoidable)... If I can figure out where they are, I'll try to land in one of the least crowded parts of it. If I can't tell which parts are the least crowded, I'll just have to land where I can, and hope for the best. Either way, the exact same principles apply as to the unfortunate bacteria (or insects) crushed when I sit down. |
But you can figure out where the people - and the bacteria - are. All you would have to do is use some kind of UV light and/or a chemical swab of some kind to determine where the largest concentration of bacteria is. If you really cared about killing as little as possible - and if bacteria really had the same value to you as other life - how could you not bother to even try? i mean, seriously, if i were in an aircraft that was going down into a city, i would at least try to contact the ground to find where the smallest concentration of people are.
You're not in a crisis situation - you have plenty of time to read up on bacteria, including how to identify the places where they will live in the greatest concentrations... i'm going to bet you've never bothered. To use your spaceship example, it's as if you're falling toward an unavoidable crash that you have weeks or even months to prepare for. You know you're going to hit Asia, and you have some control over exactly where. The impact will destroy a hundred miles or more. You can't contact the ground to warn them. But you have population maps in your on-board database that tell you where the population groups in Asia are... and you just don't bother. You just let the ship crash where the hell your fancy strikes you, and you justify your decision as "moral" because you don't know how many people you're going to kill. Sorry, no. That just doesn't fly. It's no different from standing in a field with people scattered all over, holding a malfunctioning firework rocket that's about to explode, and simply closing your eyes and tossing it wherever... without checking to see whether there's anyone there... then claiming you did the best you could to minimize casualties, and that everyone that died did so "unavoidably".
Now i don't seriously believe that you would try to justify doing that with people... yet here you are trying to justify doing the same thing with bacteria, while claiming that people and bacteria have equal value because they're both alive.
Something's fishy! Something in your personal philosophy is broken. i suspect i know where, and liljp617's tongue-in-cheek comment hints to me that he does, too.
When choosing where to sit, I have only two viable options, and I'm pretty sure both have comparable bacteria levels.
Also, any philosophy can be taken too far. It would be best to avoid crashing your aircraft into a populated area, but the possibility of that shouldn't preclude you flying an aircraft at all. | Indi wrote: |
| Furthermore, i'm going to assume you don't really make much attempt in practise to make sure that you sit where the least bacteria are... you sit wherever the hell you want to sit, right? |
I imagine that we have to be real mass murderers when it gets to public toilets 
but yes, I never thought about it along these lines, and it puts a whole new take on the survival of species situation, including when we finally die and get buried somewhere to become food for other species.
Good to take it at this microscopic level, as possibly the macroscopic will be relatively the same. Whenever we are taking up space, we are displacing space. | ocalhoun wrote: |
When choosing where to sit, I have only two viable options, and I'm pretty sure both have comparable bacteria levels. |
i'm quite sure that no matter how small the room you may be in is, there are far more than just two options of where to sit the vast majority of the time. And i really seriously doubt that the bacteria concentrations at every single sittable point in the room are within the same rough range. Just off the top of my head i'd say surfaces with porous materials will have much higher concentrations. But shouldn't that be something you should look into, if all life really matters?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Also, any philosophy can be taken too far. It would be best to avoid crashing your aircraft into a populated area, but the possibility of that shouldn't preclude you flying an aircraft at all. |
No, but it should preclude you flying an aircraft without taking steps to minimize the amount of people that might be killed should you have to make an emergency landing. You know, in real life, flight paths are laid out to avoid risk to people on the ground as much as humanly possible... even if it means violating standard rules of the air. For example, in the airport i learned at, the traffic pattern was left-handed as opposed to the international standard right-handed, simply because that took us over fewer people.
You are building straw men. i never even implied that you shouldn't fly your hypothetical spaceship. i just said that if you really value all life as much as you claim you do, that you should at least take responsibility to try to harm as few as possible.
But i say again: you don't. Do you clean your house with disinfectants? That kills billions of bacteria, and isn't necessary for your survival in the least. Your ancestors lived for tens of thousands of years without Lysol. Do you use deodorant? Same thing. That's not about survival, that's about luxury. You're not killing your armpit bacteria to survive, you're killing it to make yourself smell nice.
i find it amusing that this is your alleged philosophy of life, yet when someone points out that there's a problem with it, your response is to accuse them of "taking it too seriously", rather than admitting that you don't really take it as seriously as you thought you did.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Furthermore, i'm going to assume you don't really make much attempt in practise to make sure that you sit where the least bacteria are... you sit wherever the hell you want to sit, right? |
I imagine that we have to be real mass murderers when it gets to public toilets but yes, I never thought about it along these lines, and it puts a whole new take on the survival of species situation, including when we finally die and get buried somewhere to become food for other species.
Good to take it at this microscopic level, as possibly the macroscopic will be relatively the same. Whenever we are taking up space, we are displacing space. |
Eh, honestly, i think the whole thing is a waste of time. "Life" is a red herring. Whenever someone says they respect all life equally, it's not hard to call bullshit on it. It sounds nice, sure, but it doesn't stand up to real thought. It always boils down t the same two things: either they're not being honest about how much they care about non-human life, or they care about human life a lot less than they claim. Often a combination of both: as in the case of militant animal rights activists for example.See I told you guys INDI is a god, nothing gets past the mind of Indi, YOU should all worship INDI like I do...
but back too the point......I still don't know if fire is alive? he never answered
can someone tell me if fire is alive
cause I wanna sue the fire department for animal cruelty
| Bannik wrote: |
See I told you guys INDI is a god, nothing gets past the mind of Indi, YOU should all worship INDI like I do...
but back too the point......I still don't know if fire is alive? he never answered
can someone tell me if fire is alive
cause I wanna sue the fire department for animal cruelty |
There is no right or wrong answer. It depends on how you define life and to what degree.
In my opinion, just as I wouldn't deem a rational computer program alive, I wouldn't deem fire alive. | Indi wrote: |
| It always boils down t the same two things: either they're not being honest about how much they care about non-human life, or they care about human life a lot less than they claim. |
This is an interesting statement and very true in my case. If one cares about non-human life it could mean that you care much less about human life. There are certain parts of human life I do care about, like art, wit and wisdom, but in general I have much more time for birds, animals and mammals of the ocean than for human beings in general. Our ability as a human species to destruct ourselves and those around us, both human and non-human, is just so much more pronounced than any of the other species. | Indi wrote: |
But i say again: you don't. Do you clean your house with disinfectants? That kills billions of bacteria, and isn't necessary for your survival in the least. Your ancestors lived for tens of thousands of years without Lysol. Do you use deodorant? Same thing. That's not about survival, that's about luxury. You're not killing your armpit bacteria to survive, you're killing it to make yourself smell nice.
|
Ha!
Actually I don't clean with disinfectants, and I avoid antibacterial products as much as possible. Why? To save the lives of the bacteria!
As for the ones on the chair, it's hard to get overly concerned about that, because to avoid it thoroughly, I'd have to be very inconvenienced. That alone isn't a good reason... but considering that I kill far, far more bacteria on a daily drive to work, it just doesn't seem extremely important. So, I just avoid it where it's obvious that I can, and content myself that I kill less bacteria than most people. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | See I told you guys INDI is a god, nothing gets past the mind of Indi, YOU should all worship INDI like I do...
but back too the point......I still don't know if fire is alive? he never answered
can someone tell me if fire is alive
cause I wanna sue the fire department for animal cruelty |
There is no right or wrong answer. It depends on how you define life and to what degree.
In my opinion, just as I wouldn't deem a rational computer program alive, I wouldn't deem fire alive. |
okay simple question.
why not?
what criteria do you use too justify what is alive and what isn't...in your opinion...(fire fits into most of the criteria of life apart from being biological)*splitting off a new topic for the purpose of defining what 'life' is, without the consideration of 'biological' or 'organic'.*
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | can someone tell me if fire is alive
cause I wanna sue the fire department for animal cruelty |
There is no right or wrong answer. It depends on how you define life and to what degree. |
It really kinda deconstructs the notion that we should care equally about anything "alive" if we can't even properly define what is, hm?
"Life" is a red herring. No one really treats all "life" equally, no matter what they may say. No, there's something else that we use as a metric to measure morality by.
| deanhills wrote: |
| This is an interesting statement and very true in my case. If one cares about non-human life it could mean that you care much less about human life. There are certain parts of human life I do care about, like art, wit and wisdom, but in general I have much more time for birds, animals and mammals of the ocean than for human beings in general. Our ability as a human species to destruct ourselves and those around us, both human and non-human, is just so much more pronounced than any of the other species. |
Our ability is much greater. i doubt that our desire is. i have a hard time believing that if other species were "uplifted" to levels of intelligence great enough to use tools of comparable power, that they wouldn't be far, far, far more brutal. Just think about it logically: we are descended from apes... even the nastiest species of ape is far less aggressive and territorial than hundreds of other species of animals. | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | This is an interesting statement and very true in my case. If one cares about non-human life it could mean that you care much less about human life. There are certain parts of human life I do care about, like art, wit and wisdom, but in general I have much more time for birds, animals and mammals of the ocean than for human beings in general. Our ability as a human species to destruct ourselves and those around us, both human and non-human, is just so much more pronounced than any of the other species. |
Our ability is much greater. i doubt that our desire is. i have a hard time believing that if other species were "uplifted" to levels of intelligence great enough to use tools of comparable power, that they wouldn't be far, far, far more brutal. Just think about it logically: we are descended from apes... even the nastiest species of ape is far less aggressive and territorial than hundreds of other species of animals. |
I agree. Also, one of our achilles heel challenges is that we have a conscience. We argue whether it is OK to kill and destruct. Whereas this could be hard to find in other species, which would be more hell bound on surviving and destroying any threat or perceived threat without mercy.
