Environmental Heresies II (with apologies to ArmourPierce)

[Lord Zentei]

Old thread: (Link)

@ ArmorPierce: Apologies for missing your post. I only rediscovered the old thread while searching and found you had answered.

Whatever. When they start forming civilizations and sophisticated language I might be impressed.

They do show sophisticated language. Kind of hard to start forming civilizations with their limited ability to manipulate the environment around them.

Granted on the limited manipulation skills, but how sophisticated a language are we talking about here?

Orcas "appeared to show grief"? Gosh.

That indicates deaper thinking

Not neccesarily: dogs can apear to show grief and antilopes have been known to protect the corpses of their offspring. Grief is not neccesarily indicative of intelligence (not that I'd eat dog meat, mind you).

Incidentally, nice hasty generalization fallacy. "Dolphins are teh smart. No one can eat ANY marine mammal."

Hey, retard., I didn't say anything about other marine mammals, I was asking you just about dolphins.

Your question was in response to my claim that it was silly to refuse ban eating marine mammals (referring to marine mammals in general), hence I took it as a hasty generalization. Sorry about that.

Nice bait and switch. I repeat. NEWBORN BOVINES ARE SMARTER THAN NEWBORN HUMAN INFANTS.It matters precisely jack and shit how smart their young are compared with ours. In any case, it is hard enough to create a culture blind IQ test. Now you are claiming that there have been species blind tests?

How the hell is this bait and switch? I was talkinga bout chimpanzees, then you brought up bovines and I continued talking about chimps. I was NOT talking about newborn human infants... unless you consider 5 year olds new borns.

I mentioned bovines as an example of how the example of chimps was not relevant. The fact that 5 year old chimps exeed 5 year old humans is
as irrelevant to the question of the parity of chimps and humans as is the fact that newborn bovines exeed newborn humans. When comparing two species, the logical approach is to compare adults.

How smart do you consider 5 year old humans? This indicates that they have mental capacity that at least surpasses that of a 5 year old human child and since they are of equal age you expect the chimp would become smarter as it grows to adulthood too.

Nope, the chimp can develop faster and peak off sooner. Rates of development are not equal to final ability.

In any case, it is hard enough to create a culture blind IQ test. Now you are claiming that there have been species blind tests?

This is not an IQ test. It is a simple problem solving puzzle. I see where you are going here. You are saying that it is impossbile to guage animal intelliegence, therefore you're right.

Pretty much, since the default assumption for a given animal is that it is not as smart as humans.

[Molyneux]

Old thread: (Link)

Nice bait and switch. I repeat. NEWBORN BOVINES ARE SMARTER THAN NEWBORN HUMAN INFANTS.It matters precisely jack and shit how smart their young are compared with ours. In any case, it is hard enough to create a culture blind IQ test. Now you are claiming that there have been species blind tests?

How the hell is this bait and switch? I was talkinga bout chimpanzees, then you brought up bovines and I continued talking about chimps. I was NOT talking about newborn human infants... unless you consider 5 year olds new borns.

I mentioned bovines as an example of how the example of chimps was not relevant. The fact that 5 year old chimps exeed 5 year old humans is
as irrelevant to the question of the parity of chimps and humans as is the fact that newborn bovines exeed newborn humans. When comparing two species, the logical approach is to compare adults.

Something that struck me when I was reading the old thread...
If chimpanzees reach the level of development of a five-year-old human child, wouldn't that still be good reason not to hunt or eat them? Five years of age is more than intelligent enough to have language and even some rudimentary written-language skills...I'd think it's definitely above the lower limit for granting tentative "person" status to someone.

[ArmorPierce]

Granted on the limited manipulation skills, but how sophisticated a language are we talking about here?

Depends on how you class sophisticated language (complex relative to most other species), but they do definitely pocess a very complex communication system. For one, Dolphins identify each other by names using signature whistles to keep track of each other. This shows that dolphins have a clear and consistent vocabulary and are able to identify one another as individuals.

Not neccesarily: dogs can apear to show grief and antilopes have been known to protect the corpses of their offspring. Grief is not neccesarily indicative of intelligence (not that I'd eat dog meat, mind you).

Deeper thinking that is not exclusive to humans that some people deny.

Your question was in response to my claim that it was silly to refuse ban eating marine mammals (referring to marine mammals in general), hence I took it as a hasty generalization. Sorry about that.

I had not even posted my opinion at that point on whether I thought that dolphins should be allowed to be hunted or not. I had just stating that dolphins are smarter than pigs, possibly smarter than chimps and even comparable to humans (comparable does not mean equal) , and inquiring whether you were alright with hunting and eating chimps..

I mentioned bovines as an example of how the example of chimps was not relevant. The fact that 5 year old chimps exeed 5 year old humans is
as irrelevant to the question of the parity of chimps and humans as is the fact that newborn bovines exeed newborn humans. When comparing two species, the logical approach is to compare adults.

So humans are given rights just based on their genetics, or their intelligence? If it is based on intelligence, and you consider a 5 year old human child to have less rights than a equal aged chimp? Is it based on them being human, hence have the potential for greater intelligence? Are you then against abortion? If it is just due to them being human, what are your opinion on cloning humans with a very low mental capacity (enough to keep basic functions working) and using it to harvest organs? My point is that 5 year old humans are already very intelligent.

Nope, the chimp can develop faster and peak off sooner. Rates of development are not equal to final ability.

Did not say that. I stated that chimps are already at least as smart as a 5 year old human child based on that and then some accounting for growth and development.

In any case, it is hard enough to create a culture blind IQ test. Now you are claiming that there have been species blind tests?

This is not an IQ test. It is a simple problem solving puzzle. I see where you are going here. You are saying that it is impossbile to guage animal intelliegence, therefore you're right.

Pretty much, since the default assumption for a given animal is that it is not as smart as humans.

You said that in response to the article i posted of chimps outperforming human infants of equal age in a problem solving test. The default assumption is not that the human infants are smarter than chimps their age and the evidence shows that chimps outperforms humans at this age. Do you care to point out any biases the test could have?

[Lord Zentei]

I mentioned bovines as an example of how the example of chimps was not relevant. The fact that 5 year old chimps exeed 5 year old humans is as irrelevant to the question of the parity of chimps and humans as is the fact that newborn bovines exeed newborn humans. When comparing two species, the logical approach is to compare adults.

Something that struck me when I was reading the old thread...
If chimpanzees reach the level of development of a five-year-old human child, wouldn't that still be good reason not to hunt or eat them? Five years of age is more than intelligent enough to have language and even some rudimentary written-language skills...I'd think it's definitely above the lower limit for granting tentative "person" status to someone.[/quote]

It was in the area of problem solving that they were a match for people. Personally, I wouldn't eat them due to the genetic similarity, though I would not grant them "person" status.

[Lord Zentei]

Granted on the limited manipulation skills, but how sophisticated a language are we talking about here?

Depends on how you class sophisticated language (complex relative to most other species), but they do definitely pocess a very complex communication system. For one, Dolphins identify each other by names using signature whistles to keep track of each other. This shows that dolphins have a clear and consistent vocabulary and are able to identify one another as individuals.

Well, that's neat and all, but dogs can be trained to respond to personal names also. I was thinking more on the lines of linguistic structure, size of vocabulary and abstract thinking.

Not neccesarily: dogs can apear to show grief and antilopes have been known to protect the corpses of their offspring. Grief is not neccesarily indicative of intelligence (not that I'd eat dog meat, mind you).

Deeper thinking that is not exclusive to humans that some people deny.

Perhaps, but the presence of grief (and playfulness, etc that were mentioned in the articles you quoted) still are not an indicator of intelligence.

Your question was in response to my claim that it was silly to refuse ban eating marine mammals (referring to marine mammals in general), hence I took it as a hasty generalization. Sorry about that.

I had not even posted my opinion at that point on whether I thought that dolphins should be allowed to be hunted or not. I had just stating that dolphins are smarter than pigs, possibly smarter than chimps and even comparable to humans (comparable does not mean equal) , and inquiring whether you were alright with hunting and eating chimps..

See my answer in the previous post. As for dolphins, I would not go out of my way to eat one, though I would not refuse one were it offered.

Now regarding my initial point on marine mammals in general: do you maintain that all marine mammals should be protected?

I mentioned bovines as an example of how the example of chimps was not relevant. The fact that 5 year old chimps exeed 5 year old humans is
as irrelevant to the question of the parity of chimps and humans as is the fact that newborn bovines exeed newborn humans. When comparing two species, the logical approach is to compare adults.

So humans are given rights just based on their genetics, or their intelligence? If it is based on intelligence, and you consider a 5 year old human child to have less rights than a equal aged chimp? Is it based on them being human, hence have the potential for greater intelligence? Are you then against abortion? If it is just due to them being human, what are your opinion on cloning humans with a very low mental capacity (enough to keep basic functions working) and using it to harvest organs? My point is that 5 year old humans are already very intelligent.

Rights are not based on intelligence alone. If they were, newborn human infants would have less rights than many animals including full-grown pigs. Which was kind of my point. As for abortion, I am agaist it once brain activity has commensed. Prior to that, I am rather amblivalent, though I'd not deny abortion rights in such cases.

Nope, the chimp can develop faster and peak off sooner. Rates of development are not equal to final ability.

Did not say that. I stated that chimps are already at least as smart as a 5 year old human child based on that and then some accounting for growth and development.

<shrugs> whatever.

You said that in response to the article i posted of chimps outperforming human infants of equal age in a problem solving test. The default assumption is not that the human infants are smarter than chimps their age and the evidence shows that chimps outperforms humans at this age. Do you care to point out any biases the test could have?

I meant that the adult intelligence was what counted when determining whether individuals of a given species should be granted "person" status. Once it has been determined that a species qualifies, the presence of brain activity in a particular individual would give that individual the benefit of the doubt. As for possible biases, I am not familiar enough with the test's methodology. I would want to see the intelligence of adult chimps tested in a wide range of aspects of that term.