Are animals our children and should we make them sapient?

Great Debates
1

Morally, children and animals are innocents if they are only doing what their instincts and upbringing told them. Whether it is a hippopotamus trampling a pregnant woman to death or an 8yo boy shooting your buddy in a war-torn country, they did not know any better.

Is it not then our mission, as the only morally-aware and scientifically powerful specie act as wards of our planet’s ecosystem and make it our goal to raise all creatures (or swarms, or colonies as the creature’s “hardware” permits) to a sentience and moral awareness similar to our own? That’s what we do for our own children afterall…

Or do you think they are “happier that way” and we “shouldn’t play God” and “be the snake that made them eat the apple of Knowledge*” ?

I say we should and here is why:

A bee colony communicating at lightspeed and functionning as a computing cloud of bioprocessors could form a human-level, high latency intelligence.

Human-smart dolphins and other sea creatures would help us take advantage of the oceans in revolutionary ways.

Once you start looking at the seemingly infinite number of species out there, and reflect on the very logical trend of breeding and using animals in all kinds of ways, from carriage horses, messenger pigeons and blind-helping dogs to tasty cows, fighting cocks and the extinct Dodo.

As science advances and we become capable of more intense genetic tweaking, we worry about designer babies but few talk about smarter animals. All the focus is on A.I. which should allow us to have slave robots and so on.

But what if it was easier to create smart animal species, capable of cooperation and of having different insights in natural and unnatural** philosophy? This would enrich us immensely and empower us all to reach for the ultimate goal of globally smart ecosystem, incredibly resilient and adaptable to all threats.

I posit that besides the advantages of instant communication and endless options and flexibility that comes with sentient, tech-aided interspecies cooperation, sufficient integration and inter-dependance would bring about a rise in level of complexity.

This rise in complexity could be similar to the jump from bacteria to the multicellular organisms we represen’ today and thus, the next logical step in evolution. Maybe the aliens will talk to us THEN!

What do you think?
**Ok, I made that quote up :smiley: *

***natural philosophy = science, unnatural philosophy is everything else by my own definition :slight_smile: *

2

I think there is a big assumption here. That is that animals are not already intelligent. The issue is that you are using a linear quantitative projection for something that might be qualitative. Maybe animals are smart in the way that is most useful for their particular physiology. They live and have adapted to an ecosystem. Too much human style intelligence might just lead to chaos and a savage disequlibrium as various sentient species fight tooth and nail for supremacy. Who is to say that a bee hive wouldn’t reject wholesale our notions of morality. Maybe they’d start to view humans as they do individual bees, part of a collective whole, ultimately expendable. A single hive might see fit to kill dozens of humans in order to expand its domain. Maybe your flower garden is its food source and it views you as an impediment to its ultimate dominance over that garden.

I think the reality is that technology will increasingly resemble an intelligent ecosystem, changing how we interact with the world around us in ways that will be incomprehensible by today’s standards. Machines that are programmed to act like animals. Animals that are augmented by machines. We are going to have to question some very basic moral assumptions, but we aren’t there yet.

I think what you’re describing will come to fruition but I doubt it will be guided by a rational standardized policy. I think we’ll edit life-forms and disrupt the ecosystem in such a way that it will be a Black Swan, and we won’t even know the ramifications of it until it’s already done.

3

It would be a phenomenally stupid thing to do, if we could do it. I would expect one of the other species to try and wipe us out.

But animals aren’t our children, so I’d say your premise is flawed.

4

Emphases mine

I hate to start off on a starkly cynical note, but … I feel it is my duty.
IME, 90% of all human morality is self-serving rationalization to support some form of greed or xenophobia, or the fear of getting caught.

I think the other animals beat our act; they skip the rationalization.

Other than the really annoying misquote, I say, ‘That’s right.’

No, we should not play God; I don’t like what we’ve done to tomatoes; please leave the animal kingdom alone.

I note (and dislike) the set-up for a parallel to the Old South, but I find your proposition unpleasantly reminiscent of ‘The White Man’s Burden’.

A bee-level computing cloud gets the job done just fine. Do you really want them to find out about Agent Orange?

Or kick our scrawny polluting asses right the hell out of said oceans. Why on earth would they trust us with more information?

It would be really cool if we could use mosquitoes to spread vaccines.

Ah, I see …
You want to bring back slavery.

Stop. Think. What is the greatest threat to the global ecosystem?

That would be humans. Because humans use resources with no concern for the effect on the ecosystem.

These human you propose should genetically alter other animals to a greater degree.

Okay … But this would be a good thing?

Oh, hell. I completely missed this the first time.
You win. You suckered me.

That you demonstrated the kind of intellectual arrogance and practical idiocy behind most scientific disasters perfectly.

And I fell for it.

5

Black Swan

I know, they were the inspiration for the book that coined the term I was using. :wink:

It is about randomness and how unpredictable events change the scope of our paradigm. The example of the Black Swan is in reference to how Europeans were certain that all Swans were white until they brought a Black Swan back from Australia.

6

You’re the one who wants other species to remain subservient to us humans, to be tortured, sold, raped and eaten (not necessarily in that order, sorry to inform you :() and generally denied equal rights, protections and opportunities. You, sir, and you ilk*, are the real animal slavers!

But you are not the only one I am disappointed in. I see a lot of silly alarmist nonsense here. What I am describing is a vast undertaking likely to last centuries or millenia. All “guinea pigs” would initially be unique, one step removed from extinction and subject to exhaustive monitoring and study. Much trial and error is likely to occur, with the deficient specimens to be destroyed in a clean and painless fashion.

As our body of knowledge regarding consciousness, intelligence and xeno-psychology increases, we will become better and quicker at it. We can slowly go from altered individuals, to families, to tribes/swarms/colonies to fully-numbered species if everything checks out and cooperation is possible

ex: we give you sardines and sugar and you repair our undersea cables and help patrol our shipping lanes and supply us with 50% of your surplus honey or whatever.

Think about the BIG picture, centuries from now, the combined might of a trillion earth species and a quadrillion intelligent minds pushing forward. We would be unstoppable, the universe would surely be ours**!

  • I own a cat, so I’m *technically *part of that ilk but that really doesn’t mean anything…she escaped a bunch of times and came back, so I’m in the clear.

** Metaphorically speaking.

7

Next you’re going to try and convince us that our televisions are slaves. No; they’re not sapient enough to be slaves. Which is something I also believe of cows and sheep and assorted other critters as well - they’re not too dumb to be hurt and be victims, but they’re too dumb for me to consider them as slaves.

And I say this as somebody who don’t mind that we kill the things - I’m not rationalizing. I just don’t believe that they make the cut as slaves. Unless we ‘elevate’ their intelligences, that is.

You would hand over captive sardines to be eaten?? You monster!!

(What, you say you haven’t elevated those sardines to be sentient? Whyever not? -And whatever your answer is, it can apply to most other species as well.)

Actually I’m picturing the bees deciding to nuke us. If you want a qadrillion intelligent minds, I’d recommend sticking to making more humans - as soon as you can find the space for them. Humans, at least, have that tenuous bond of shared species to hopelfully help keep them from killing one another. Every little bit helps, and we need all the halp we can get.

(For the record, I see no reason to burden any other species with human intellect anyway. If they want it, let 'em evolve it themselves - then they can’t blame us.)

8

I am sure you are finding this all very entertaining, but you have crossed a line there.

Back that statement up, right now. Cite a post of mine in this thread that backs up that accusation.

Hell, cite any post of mine.

I may be new here, but I know that GD is not the forum for whimsical games. If you want to play those games, don’t use me.

Back it up, or back down.

(And do a little research on your assumptions)

9

…said he who accused me of wanting to bring back slavery! :rolleyes:

Here is your cite:

Leaving it “alone” as you say, simply means a continuation of the status quo, under which we get to decide how many animals to hunt, clobber or fish, how many we can imprison in Zoos , which species are protected and from what, which are to be raised only to be slaughtered and made into juicy delicious steaks or shoes. Oh, and we can buy and sell them too. a puppy costs around 500 bucks at the pet store.

I’d like to remind you that I included myself in the rank of the animal slavers, notwithstanding my lighthearted reason as to why I’m in the clear.

:dubious:
Really? You’re really indignant or are you just pulling my leg. I can’t tell! :eek:

10

Damn straight, and I’ll back that up.

No, it doesn’t. It means ‘Don’t breed something to destroy its inherent worth just to make it more convenient for humans’.

Yes, you can. You came into GD just to yank a few chains (note your persistence in using an unwarranted assumption).

Well, this is your lucky day, because you have hit all my pissed-off points.

Bad science
Arrogant science
And damned bad syntax.

11

I understand your point. The same reasoning is used for abortion: an embryo doesn’t legally make the cut as a human being until a certain point is reached. What women do in their womb, the human race can do over much longer periods of time with whole species.

Just like each birth can give us the next Hitler or Einstein, elevating species could be fraught with dangers if done without precautions. Same as nuclear research and spatial exploration. Yet, we pulled them off ok.

Well…dolphins gotta eat. One species at a time. The sardines would probably far down the list, by which time we’ll have tofu sardines to feed our cetacean friends. Rome wasn’t built in one day afterall. One species at a time.

Why would the smart-bees want to nuke us? That is insane! We would essentially be their beloved big brothers, their creators in a sense. Those who brought them the light of reason and intellect and nudged them out of the evolutionary cul-de-sac they were trapped in. Why, if anything, they would love us as a child loves her parents, virtues and flaws and all. They would never nuke us. Never. You really shouldn’t anthropomorphize bees.

On the other hand, humans used nukes twice. I don’t see how making more humans is any safer. Maybe we are one of the most cruel and aggressive species out there. We are certainly the most dangerous as things stand today.

How can any other species evolve when we have taken control of our environment? We just wipe aggressive species out when they cease to perform as we require. No, we must help them evolve or become extinct ourselves for this to happen.

12

How? By saying that I used the words “robot slaves” in passing when referring to the quest for A.I.? :rolleyes:

I’d like to introduce agriculture and animal breeding to you. They’re a few millenia old and they consist ENTIRELY of “breeding something to destroy its inherent worth just to make it more convenient for humans”. This ship has sailed a long time ago, my friend.

They said Leonardo Da Vinci* was just yanking a few chains too but he was just ahead of his time. Seriously though, crazy ideas are not always bad or stupid ideas and just because I like to laugh and don’t always take myself or my arguments too seriously does not mean they should be dismissed offhand as history has taught us.

Alright, my syntax may have been subpar and I apologize for it.

I don’t know what you mean by arrogant science but isn’t it arrogant to claim my science is bad without providing justification? I only spoke about genetic engineering and information technology and extrapolated what might be possible centuries or millenia in the future. Nothing about black hole portals or dilithium crystals and warp speed, neh?

**He painted some woman and designed crazy parachutes…and…umm…just go check wikipedia for more.
*

13

We will be enriched far more by getting to know animals as they are and have evolved and fit in the environment as it is. Arachnologists claim that we haven’t classified even half of the spiders yet, let alone even start to understand their behavior or role in the ecosystem. Extrapolate that to our level of ignorance over all the species, and you are proposing playing with something we really don’t understand.

I am horrified at the thought of trying to exploit the animal kingdom in this way. These ideas can only come from a race which has become so separated from the natural world that it cannot see animals for the incredible creatures they really are. My current writing and research is aimed entirely at getting people to look at the real animals more closely and appreciate their extraordinary natural abilities.

I started with my beloved spiders! We can’t even get close to their silk creation abilities. Nor their sensitivity to movement. It is only recent research which has identified that they are capable of solving mazes. We humans have grossly underestimated animal intelligence because we measure in terms of human intelligence. How well can parrots speak English? How many words can a chimp learn? Try: how many chimp communication sounds can you make? How well can you twang a female spider’s web to tell the female that you are a male spider, not a meal? I am not saying spiders (chimps and parrots) are more intelligent, I am saying the comparison is meaningless.

14

While I don’t think we should alter all animal life to human levels, I see no reason why we shouldn’t uplift some above animality. As for the “they might kill us !” argument, as pointed out, you can use that argument just as well to claim that no one should have children.

No, they aren’t just as smart as us. No, they aren’t as emotionally complex as us, or as aware as us. And leaving them to stagnate in subhumanity isn’t noble, either.

No, we won’t. They are just animals; they simply can’t “enrich” us very much. Yes, they can be interesting or useful, and often pleasant to be around, but that’s all.

15

You are therefore disagreeing with almost all humans who have gone before you and many still on earth. The very first cave paintings were all of animals, not humans. Fables and folklore, myths, legends, fantasy and much great literature is inspired by animals. It is only recently that we have separated into this intellectually superior and patronizing attitude.

I would hate to live in your mindset. Such human superiority, I am delighted to say, is now being rejected by many of our most prominent philosophers. Read David Abram’s ‘Spell of the Sensuous’ and you may gain a glimpse (and that’s all I have so far!) of what the natural world can offer to those who have cut themselves off from it. Then go out and experience animals in their own world yourself. I have been enriched beyond belief just by getting to know my own spiders as individuals. I was an arachnophobe, I am now enthralled every day by those individuals I have got to know I see in their webs and burrows every day. Overcoming that small amount of ignorance about animals has changed my life - now I am going out to get to know all the rest!

We are superior in every measure which is human based. We must be - we make the definitions.

Animals are far more than interesting. They are enriching beyond belief.

16

Considering that we’ve been eating animals and putting humans in charge ( and not the other way around ) all that time, I think it’s safe to say that we had a clear view of who was higher up the moral and intellectual ladder.

So ? No matter how much those people philosophize, we’ll still be people and animals won’t.

But we aren’t; we are weaker, slower, less perceptive, and so on in many ways, inlcuding human defined ways. It’s just that the qualities that animals have an edge over us aren’t intellectual ones.

And wouldn’t it be more enriching if they could TALK to us ? Tell us what the world is like from their perspective ? And wouldn’t it be more enriching for THEM if they could actually think about what they see and do and are ?

17

Go out in a crocodile infested river and still tell me that you are doing the eating and in charge! I am not sure how being better killers gives us the moral or intellectual high ground.

It would be great if they could talk to us. Or us to them. The assumption that they can’t think about what they see and do is now rejected by most zoologists and has been for ages. The fact that animals act on moral imperatives, and not just instinctive ones, has also been demonstrated. In my next book, I quote the example of a wasp rescuing one of its kind from a spider’s web with the spider close by, so it was risking its life. I had trouble believing what I was watching, but I have the sequence of photographs to prove it. I can come up with no other reason than altruism. You will tell me it is instinct. I can counter with the fact that everything you do is instinct, just with a more complicated algorithm - and we get nowhere but playing with words.

Stephen Pinker mentions examples of animals choosing to act purely for moral reasons: “The impulse to avoid harm, which gives trolley ponderers the willies when they consider throwing a man off a bridge, can also be found in rhesus monkeys, who go hungry rather than pull a chain that delivers food to them and a shock to another monkey. Respect for authority is clearly related to the pecking orders of dominance and appeasement that are widespread in the animal kingdom.” from:

The Moral Instinct

I question the morals of those who did the experiments!

There was an interesting article in the New Yorker on the topic of animals and language only last week: Birdbrain - by Margot Talbot

The animals experiments are all about getting parrots and primates to speak our language. I watch the parrots here a great deal. We can replicate their major calls - and they will respond. They learn and communicate - the great big white sulfur crested cockatoos sit on the veranda and screech at me until their seed is put out. That is the only sound of theirs I understand and speak. When they are together there is an endless string of chattering sounds between them to which they respond. Is this language? Probably. We bird watchers only know the major calls, not the chatter. And I can speak less ‘words’ of theirs than sulfur crested cockatoos do of ours in cages of pet owners all over the world. We can’t assume all valid communication is in words. A lot of ours isn’t!

I am constantly coming across evidence in my own research and in the literature, that we have hugely underestimated animal intelligence, with myths like goldfish only remember for 3 seconds and that fish don’t feel pain. These widely held, and disproved, beliefs give us the right to exploit animals without guilt and with great cruelty - and so are firmly held onto by many to excuse their disregard for animals’ pain. Is that morally superior?

I suspect that we are the only species which philosophizes and thinks to the intellectual level that we do. I’m not going to argue with that. It is self-evident - and humans have done magnificent things with that intellect (and a lot else). Doesn’t that just give us a moral responsibility to the animals, as we have to children (harking back to the OP)?

In terms of superiority, you would not last a day were all the bacteria in your body to die. So who is ‘in charge’ - something you seem to value highly? Brainless creatures who live on you and on whom you depend, maybe? Given a nuclear holocaust, many of them would survive while you would not. In that way, you are inferior to a cockroach.

Why does it have to be some kind of competition? Who cares who is ‘better’ on the scales you have chosen? Is that what stops you letting the millions of extraordinary animals with which we share this planet enrich your life?

18

You prove my point. Only by putting myself at a gross disadvantage do they have the edge on me.

It was your argument that WE held them in high esteem until recently. I pointed out that we didn’t act like it. And it does give us the higher intellectual ground, since our intellect is HOW we became the better killers. And we have the moral high ground since we are one of the least violent, most altruistic creatures on earth.

No, what rejected is the idea that they don’t think at all; not that they don’t think at our level.

But not everything I do is instinct; much of it is learned. And the fact that I am a more complicated program ( NOT an algorithm ) is part of what makes me superior to a wasp. Given how simple wasps are, I don’t see how that’s any more noble than one mindless robot rescuing another mindless robot; while it might be altruism in the biological sense, it isn’t in the moral sense.

So ? Experiments like that just shows that some animals have some crude precursor to our own morality, just as they have a simpler form of intelligence and communication. It doesn’t make them our equals.

Animals typically don’t need to make excuses, because they wouldn’t consider for a moment the morality of hurting something else, especially something of another species. And many people go out of their way to be kind to animals; in America, if anything, we’re kinder to animals than people.

Nor would they survive if all carbon vanished. Does that make carbon superior ?

No, because they are brainless. They can’t make plans or give orders.

19

We’re getting into a game of semantics. I actually agree with most of what you say, just not the implications. I am well aware that I overcame my irrational fear of spiders by learning about them and subsequently became irrationally obsessed with them. My life has been so greatly enriched by this fact so I hold on to my irrational passion for them.

My only real objection to what you say is the implication that animals are machine-like robots who don’t enrich our lives. I suspect that you don’t spend much time in the animal’s own habitat, but judge them entirely from their behaviour in ours. I spend a lot of time in the bush watching animals in their natural habitat. Observing and getting to know individuals for great lengths of time - not seeing them and just identifying the species. So I suspect our differences are more about degree and bias than absolutes.

Having written a book on crocodiles, I have no doubt that humans are far more violent. Cats are the only others who come close. But that’s another thread!

20

Not animals, as a group. Just the simple ones, like spiders and insects and slugs and so on.

Humans are one of the least violent animals. Don’t confuse deadliness with violence. About an order of magnitude less violent than, say, a deer IIRC. It’s just that where a deer would shove or bite, we shoot or stab, and we pick more lethal targets.