Socially, it is. Though, the social value of an "asshole" is undervalue compared to the biological value of being able to get rid of element the body cannot process. In other words, I'm glad to be an asshole.
Children are more easily replaceable, and the loss of experience is much less. If a newborn dies, that's just a few weeks wasted, if a 40 years old dies, it's 40 years worth of experience wasted.
Don't get too hard on them, after all it's aimed at +8 years old children. It's kinda reassuring that at least someone at the WH who could run through it.
The dismantling business is a real theft, as dismantlers get paid on both end of the rope... This should be the only business where you get paid for acquiring the base product, and get paid for the resource at the end...
Did you ask them or did you draw that conclusion from the point you were trying to make ? While I can live in a 10sq.m. apartment (I have), I would definitively enjoy multiple hundreds-acre properties... Somehow, even human, as they grow in success, like to have bigger and bigger "living space".
If cutting too many tree means a higher standard of life for me and my related kin, then I don't have a problem, even if doing so means killing i species. OOTH, I don't see the point of keeping animals in zoo, or as pet. The only reason I see for pet is to alleviate loneliness, which is a symptoms of a weak mind. The only reason I see for zoo is that you get an instant gratification (seeing animals), which would otherwise be much more difficult in nature, in terms of general resource people would be willing to invest (both money and time wise).
Black bear "habitat" in nature is a few square kilometers. There is no way you'll make me believe that packing a couple of bears in a few hundreds square meters is "recreating their habitat"... I don't see the point in "protecting" the last few hundreds animals of a given species, the genetic diversity of the species is just not big enough to let the specie survive altogether. As I previously mentioned, I don't specifically care about a species dying because of humans. Nature, in the grand scheme of things will kill us all in a few billions years anyway, and earth "as-we-know-it" disappearance from the universe will not matter anyway. The only thing that really matter is what MY life, and the life of my kin in the next one or two generation will be. Beyond that, we're all fucked anyway (just because cheap energy will disappear one day). So I don't really mind driving a SUV and eating black bear, moose, cat or dogs for dinner.
How about "nobody" ? Why do you need to be so narrowly minded to assume than living being need to be cared about, either by the Government, their employer, or the zoo manager ?
Nature doesn't really gives a shit about diversity. It has killed more species over the existence of earth than humans will ever do. The only thing really wiped out by a nuclear holocaust would be the human race, and a few hundreds species of mammals. Which is, all things considered, just a dent in the amount of life present on earth...
I think the human history would prove you wrong. You are reasoning with current-era morality standard, just the same way gun control freaks are calling wolf by stating that street would be a blood-bath if CCW was to be widespread, or anti-marijuana freaks keep stating that legalizing the stuff would create millions of non-productive druggies overnight. Societies have been running for centuries with widespread use of slavery, and to some extend, without the rule-of-law we know nowadays. The greatest structure built by mankind are the fruits of slavery and ruthless dictators/monarchs, and we are barely building anything rivaling with it now.
Sounds more like a jail than a hotel. And all things considered, I'd rather live in the rainforest than in a shiny jail. Though, I agree, I am in a minority thinking that way, even among humans.
Then we should be able to do the same to others humans, as humans predators would be at the top of the food chain of other weaker humans... Oh, wait... isn't that what Governments are doing ? Imposing their will on us, without complete acceptance of EACH AND EVERY one of us ?
There is a long stretched between eating meat, and agreeing to enslave another unable-to-consent living being. Though, most people are unable to understand this.
Killing for resource (food, pelt, bones...), can be made quick and with minimal suffering (assuming good shot placement). Enslaving another living being is a lifelong process. Nobody would accept to be jailed in apartments or house for years.
is not whether or not animals are persons, but whether or not we can give ourselves every rights to subdue, restrain, decide of the life or death, and/or mutilation (commonly known as "fixing") of other living being. If you see this on a consent point of view, there is no way an animal can give consent in human terms. In most case, even if the animal gave consent it might not be relevant, as the animal is in direct dependence on humans for his bare survival, as it has been "trained" (and to some extend dumbed down) to be loyal to human. On this moral point of view, I object to pet ownership. Though, at the same time, I have no problem with the perspective to eat horse, dog, cat, rabbit, hare, squirrels meat (or other "cute" animals).
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution had a wonderful way to handle child with disabilities, though, in between, we fucked it up and allowed them to now potentially procreate...
All in all, children will turn into adults and will, all things considered, not do anything significant other than pollute.
Socially, it is. Though, the social value of an "asshole" is undervalue compared to the biological value of being able to get rid of element the body cannot process. In other words, I'm glad to be an asshole.
Children are more easily replaceable, and the loss of experience is much less. If a newborn dies, that's just a few weeks wasted, if a 40 years old dies, it's 40 years worth of experience wasted.
Don't get too hard on them, after all it's aimed at +8 years old children. It's kinda reassuring that at least someone at the WH who could run through it.
.. actually write a real line of code, or did he just moved some widgets around a pushed a button ?
The dismantling business is a real theft, as dismantlers get paid on both end of the rope... This should be the only business where you get paid for acquiring the base product, and get paid for the resource at the end...
Of course they were, most men were taking bullets on the various front for them... There wasn't much women on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day...
of course, most of them tends to have it filled with fat...
Unfortunately, women taking risks generally end up at the police station / university whining office for a rape charge to be reported.
Did you ask them or did you draw that conclusion from the point you were trying to make ? While I can live in a 10sq.m. apartment (I have), I would definitively enjoy multiple hundreds-acre properties... Somehow, even human, as they grow in success, like to have bigger and bigger "living space".
If cutting too many tree means a higher standard of life for me and my related kin, then I don't have a problem, even if doing so means killing i species. OOTH, I don't see the point of keeping animals in zoo, or as pet. The only reason I see for pet is to alleviate loneliness, which is a symptoms of a weak mind. The only reason I see for zoo is that you get an instant gratification (seeing animals), which would otherwise be much more difficult in nature, in terms of general resource people would be willing to invest (both money and time wise).
Black bear "habitat" in nature is a few square kilometers. There is no way you'll make me believe that packing a couple of bears in a few hundreds square meters is "recreating their habitat"... I don't see the point in "protecting" the last few hundreds animals of a given species, the genetic diversity of the species is just not big enough to let the specie survive altogether. As I previously mentioned, I don't specifically care about a species dying because of humans. Nature, in the grand scheme of things will kill us all in a few billions years anyway, and earth "as-we-know-it" disappearance from the universe will not matter anyway. The only thing that really matter is what MY life, and the life of my kin in the next one or two generation will be. Beyond that, we're all fucked anyway (just because cheap energy will disappear one day). So I don't really mind driving a SUV and eating black bear, moose, cat or dogs for dinner.
Lots of animals are smarter in their management of resources than most humans...
How about "nobody" ? Why do you need to be so narrowly minded to assume than living being need to be cared about, either by the Government, their employer, or the zoo manager ?
Nobody said than humans societies were more ethical... I object both the idea of "social contracts" and "pet ownership", for the same reason.
Responsibility and justice are just human concepts. There is nothing inherently just (or unjust) in them.
Nature doesn't really gives a shit about diversity. It has killed more species over the existence of earth than humans will ever do. The only thing really wiped out by a nuclear holocaust would be the human race, and a few hundreds species of mammals. Which is, all things considered, just a dent in the amount of life present on earth...
I think the human history would prove you wrong. You are reasoning with current-era morality standard, just the same way gun control freaks are calling wolf by stating that street would be a blood-bath if CCW was to be widespread, or anti-marijuana freaks keep stating that legalizing the stuff would create millions of non-productive druggies overnight. Societies have been running for centuries with widespread use of slavery, and to some extend, without the rule-of-law we know nowadays. The greatest structure built by mankind are the fruits of slavery and ruthless dictators/monarchs, and we are barely building anything rivaling with it now.
Sounds more like a jail than a hotel. And all things considered, I'd rather live in the rainforest than in a shiny jail. Though, I agree, I am in a minority thinking that way, even among humans.
Then we should be able to do the same to others humans, as humans predators would be at the top of the food chain of other weaker humans... Oh, wait... isn't that what Governments are doing ? Imposing their will on us, without complete acceptance of EACH AND EVERY one of us ?
By which standard to do measure "comfortable" ?
Good point... I don't know.
Another ethical question would be whether or not to consider Nazi human experiments results usable... or not.
There is a long stretched between eating meat, and agreeing to enslave another unable-to-consent living being. Though, most people are unable to understand this.
Killing for resource (food, pelt, bones...), can be made quick and with minimal suffering (assuming good shot placement). Enslaving another living being is a lifelong process. Nobody would accept to be jailed in apartments or house for years.
is not whether or not animals are persons, but whether or not we can give ourselves every rights to subdue, restrain, decide of the life or death, and/or mutilation (commonly known as "fixing") of other living being. If you see this on a consent point of view, there is no way an animal can give consent in human terms. In most case, even if the animal gave consent it might not be relevant, as the animal is in direct dependence on humans for his bare survival, as it has been "trained" (and to some extend dumbed down) to be loyal to human. On this moral point of view, I object to pet ownership. Though, at the same time, I have no problem with the perspective to eat horse, dog, cat, rabbit, hare, squirrels meat (or other "cute" animals).