[extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...

[A B]

Hi Robert,
   
  I would draw the line at consciousness, assuming that its definition can eventually be pinned down. An entity without a consciousness (including but not limited to a lack of pain sensation - physical and emotional), I think could be treated in any way without ethical violation. I would extend this even to say that intelligence level is irrelevant in this case, even if it is a super-intelligence; if it is not conscious, it cannot be abused because it was never "alive" in the first place. [OTOH, a conscious super-intelligence is "alive" in my books, and deserves protection - which it should be able to self supply ;-) ] I suppose that killing and eating conscious animals could be considered immoral. And I am certainly guilty of this (eating at least - I do *try* not to kill or injure animals myself), and I've recognized that. I'm actually in the early stages of a fully vegetarian diet, for both health related and philosophical reasons.
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich 

Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
  
I'd like to ask a question whether anyone on the list adheres to the Buddhist definition of "sentience" -- essentially any organism which breathes.

If one accepts that definition then I would suspect that many, if not most, list members are guilty of "abusing" sentient beings (it presumably requires that one not consume meat). 

If one subscribes to somewhat stricter definitions, e.g. consuming oxygen, having "nerves", or in the simplest case cellular receptors which extract information from the environment, then one would be eliminating fish, insects, nematodes and presumably any "cellular" material as food sources. 

In fact it would seem that only photosynthetic plants and most single celled organisms would fall into the category of not being "abusers" of sentient life.

With respect to the discussion involving "public" education, Dennett's perspective was interesting.  He thought a public education about "religions" in the broadest sense -- i.e. one has to learn about *all* religions (sufficiently well to pass 'standardized' test about them) was the solution to current paradigm of religious brain washing.  I know that for myself it was an education in science that forced a direct confrontation between evidence-based reasoning (science) and Catholic indoctrination around the time I was 13-14 years old.  An education in a variety of religions at an earlier age would quite likely have facilitated the realization that one set of beliefs that I had been taught had some major problems.  I would suspect that I would have stopped believing in a "savior" around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. 

It seems that the removal of ones children from public education is perhaps  playing a major role in the revival of Christan fundamentalism (in the U.S.).  It is the ability to brainwash children and limit their exposure to other "realities" which allows the manufacture of irrational mind-clones.  It is easy to say that one (as a list member) would educate ones children "properly" (in rational thinking, etc.) -- but what is to guarantee that everyone else will do that? 

Robert

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060406/ccba24f8/attachment.html>