[ExI] time to devour the dog

[Emlyn]

2009/12/22 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
> Who knew?  A dog is worse than an SUV:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood;_ylt=AujXbeP6jnj13L53lJiX7iGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ4YXZnZDQyBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDA5MTIyMC9saWZlc3R5bGVjbGltYXRld2FybWluZ2FuaW1hbHNmb29kBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMTAEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNwb2xsdXRpbmdwZXQ
>
> spike

Stories like this put the cart before the horse (or the SUV before the
dog). The same reasoning would show that humans are the worst thing of
all, and we need to reduce population. I think anytime your philosophy
leads you to the idea of a purge, active or passive, it's a sign
you've lost track of what you were doing.

To my mind, the purpose of worrying about the environment, is that we
need a long term viable planet *for people*. If in solving a sub
problem of "how can we protect the future for people", you get the
answer "kill a lot of people", you've hit reductio ad absurdum; some
of your premises are wrong, *and*, if you don't recognise that, then
you've lost track of the problem you were trying to solve in the first
place.

As to dogs, well, given that they are sentients who can suffer, I
think they deserve some level of similar consideration of interests to
humans. Also, to the extent that they have a social life intrinsically
linked to human social life, they should be including in the set of
"people" who's future you are trying to secure. ie: You are also
trying to save the dogs, so killing your dog for that purpose is not
right.

As to SUVs, they are a tool. They are not a social sentient. If
reducing SUVs helps secure the future of humans, that's great.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site