Eating and killing pets

[Shrykull]

Here are some links. Sometimes it IS legal to kill your pet if you do it humanely

These videos are more graphic. Of cruelty to cats. I'm not sure of the latter one though. If it happened in an could they charge them with a crime? Who's jurisdiction would it fall under?

But, what about people at slaughterhouses that kill chickens and pigs and cows (and even torture them while they're doing it) do they get charged with a crime? It seems that humans have a de facto hierarchy of species. It seems to depend more on what the intelligence of the animal is. You'd certainly get the biggest penalty for killing a dolphin or chimpanzee then you would a cat, dog, rat or mouse. Or maybe even not escape with your life for killing a cow in India.

Which makes me think? If we ever come across a more advanced or more intelligent race, couldn't they use the same justification (like the Goa'uld) to kill us? Because we are lower in the hierarchy of species?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Which makes me think? If we ever come across a more advanced or more intelligent race, couldn't they use the same justification (like the Goa'uld) to kill us? Because we are lower in the hierarchy of species?

Advanced, not at all. A species with better technology has no more right to kill us than more advanced earth cultures do. Yes, they've done it anyway but that hardly makes it right.

As for being more intelligent; no, I don't think so. A difference in intelligence and general mental sophistication isn't just a matter of relative status along an arbitrary scale. There's a bottom to that scale, and less intelligent creatures the farther down you go are simply missing aspects of the mind; not just having lesser versions of what we have. We suffer and are aware; dogs suffer and have a lesser awareness; insects almost certainly don't suffer or have awareness.

So the hierarchy doesn't scale like that. An intelligence that is to us as we are to bugs shouldn't treat us like bugs, because we are more than bugs in absolute, not just relative terms.

[Shrykull]

Something got cut on on my OP. It's supposed to be "if it happened in an ocean"

[Eulogy]

Let me put it this way: How much pain can something feel? And I don't just mean physical pain: if the creature's parents or siblings die, does it usually grieve?

Humans mourn their dead, and so do elephants. Kill an ant, however, and the rest of the colony won't even notice, let alone care. A cow that gets slaughtered doesn't upset the rest of the herd, yet gorillas can care for other animals and feel sad when they die? Why cats scream when they burn, but cockroaches, when decapitated, die not of brainlessness, but starvation?

It's one thing to eat an animal because you are starving. It's quite another to torture one for your jollies. "People" who kill animals simply because they are a petty inconvenience are monsters, monsters who think nothing of inflicting suffering and death at a whim.

Carnivores kill not because they are mean or sadistic. They kill to avoid a long painful wasting death. They kill because they have no choice. Humans too need some meat in their diets, but sane not-evil humans get meat (or at least would prefer to, if they had a choice) from dumb critters who either don't feel any kind of pain or would only feel very small amounts; NOT from complex creatures who not only clearly feel pain, but remember the bonds they make with others.

In fact, you can tell a lot about a person by how she or he treats animals that are under his or her power. After all, if a scumshitbag hurts a kitten for no good reason, how do you think he's going to treat other people? What do you think he's going to do to other people whom he does not fear? Torturing animals is a sign of psychopathy; those who do not feel sympathy deserve none in turn.

Would a loving owner eat his pet if the alternative was death? Yes. Would he feel like shit afterwards? You betcha. But nobody would hold the pet's death against him.

Needless suffering is bad. Therefore creatures going through needless pain is bad. If you need to kill something, do it quick and be grateful for the life you take to sustain your own. You see, human suffering is most bad not because we're special, but because out of all of the animals on earth we feel the most pain. Loss of a loved one hits us the hardest, and pain wracks us greatest, hence why losing a turtle is better than losing a baby.

We know this, and so damn well should superintelligences. In fact, said superintelligences should have no reason to hurt us unless it was either sadistic (in which case all bets are off) or if it was to stop an even worse tragedy from occurring.

Since suffering is bad, a superintelligence inflicting said suffering on us would also be bad. It would be bad to do it to other intelligent aliens too, since it is safe to assume that they can feel much more pain than your garden variety beetle. So yeah, why you kill something is at least as important as the how, especially if there are alternatives available or the task is optional.

A kitten that drowns could have been delivered to a shelter instead, where it could have found a home and lived out its days happily instead of getting a sudden end to a way too short life, a life it never got a chance to live. Those who think life is disposable are better off disposed.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Carnivores kill not because they are mean or sadistic. They kill to avoid a long painful wasting death. They kill because they have no choice. Humans too need some meat in their diets, but sane not-evil humans get meat (or at least would prefer to, if they had a choice) from dumb critters who either don't feel any kind of pain or would only feel very small amounts; NOT from complex creatures who not only clearly feel pain, but remember the bonds they make with others.

To nitpick, this is demonstrably false. Polar bears have been witnessed, after having killed a single large animal, to go right back and kill some more. Even though the single animal it has killed would be more than adequate. In fact, there is no physical way for the polar bear to consume everything it killed. Occam's Razor would suggest that these polar bears are killing for their own amusement. Killer whales have been seen torturing their food before they eat it. Several of them would capture a single seal and spend their time knocking it about, hurtling it from the water with their flukes. The seal is still quite alive through most of this treatment. A group of captive chimpanzees have been documented as playing a game of using bread to lure chickens within their reach. Then they poke the chickens with sharp objects. Not to kill them, but to hurt them. Even further down the sliding scale of mental complexity . . . cats are well-known for catching an animal, but not always killing it right away. They'll bat it around and toy with it. Release it, only to catch it again. This is out-and-out cruelty perpetrated for the cat's amusement.

All of these are beings with a sufficiently developed theory of mind to possess and exercise empathy. The chief difference between a human being, and some other animal, is that a human is sufficiently intelligent to evaluate and quantify the extent of other animals' theory of mind. Which leads to the situation where we still torture some of our food animals for our amusement . . . a rodeo cannot be construed as anything less than orchestrated cruelty towards cattle; but on the other hand, we design slaughteryards to be laid out in such a way that the cattle go to their appointment with my barbecue supremely ignorant of what awaits them.

[Eulogy]

Conceded.

It doesn't excuse their behaviour, but my other points still stand. You'd hate to be a chicken, after all.

[salm]

Carnivores kill not because they are mean or sadistic. They kill to avoid a long painful wasting death. They kill because they have no choice. Humans too need some meat in their diets, but sane not-evil humans get meat (or at least would prefer to, if they had a choice) from dumb critters who either don't feel any kind of pain or would only feel very small amounts; NOT from complex creatures who not only clearly feel pain, but remember the bonds they make with others.

Humans don´t need meat or at least they need a lot less than the enormous amounts they eat. Every animal that is killed for you which you don´t necessarily need is an animal killed for your pleasure.

[Mayabird]

A comment: polar bears and wolves (and other predators particularly of colder climates) kill more than they need at a time as a method of stocking their larders. The meat won't be going bad in the winter so if they can't find food later, they can go back to the kills they made before when prey was plentiful and scavenge them. This is not to say that they don't enjoy what they do (I'm sure they do), but it's not just killing for fun's sake.

Except for kitties. That's all play.

[Molyneux]

Carnivores kill not because they are mean or sadistic. They kill to avoid a long painful wasting death. They kill because they have no choice. Humans too need some meat in their diets, but sane not-evil humans get meat (or at least would prefer to, if they had a choice) from dumb critters who either don't feel any kind of pain or would only feel very small amounts; NOT from complex creatures who not only clearly feel pain, but remember the bonds they make with others.

To nitpick, this is demonstrably false. Polar bears have been witnessed, after having killed a single large animal, to go right back and kill some more. Even though the single animal it has killed would be more than adequate. In fact, there is no physical way for the polar bear to consume everything it killed. Occam's Razor would suggest that these polar bears are killing for their own amusement. Killer whales have been seen torturing their food before they eat it. Several of them would capture a single seal and spend their time knocking it about, hurtling it from the water with their flukes. The seal is still quite alive through most of this treatment. A group of captive chimpanzees have been documented as playing a game of using bread to lure chickens within their reach. Then they poke the chickens with sharp objects. Not to kill them, but to hurt them. Even further down the sliding scale of mental complexity . . . cats are well-known for catching an animal, but not always killing it right away. They'll bat it around and toy with it. Release it, only to catch it again. This is out-and-out cruelty perpetrated for the cat's amusement.

All of these are beings with a sufficiently developed theory of mind to possess and exercise empathy. The chief difference between a human being, and some other animal, is that a human is sufficiently intelligent to evaluate and quantify the extent of other animals' theory of mind. Which leads to the situation where we still torture some of our food animals for our amusement . . . a rodeo cannot be construed as anything less than orchestrated cruelty towards cattle; but on the other hand, we design slaughteryards to be laid out in such a way that the cattle go to their appointment with my barbecue supremely ignorant of what awaits them.

I've never actually watched one, but - how on Earth is a rodeo cruel to cattle?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

A comment: polar bears and wolves (and other predators particularly of colder climates) kill more than they need at a time as a method of stocking their larders. The meat won't be going bad in the winter so if they can't find food later, they can go back to the kills they made before when prey was plentiful and scavenge them. This is not to say that they don't enjoy what they do (I'm sure they do), but it's not just killing for fun's sake.

Except for kitties. That's all play.

To comment on the comment: Kittens play because its that constant reinforcement that hones their hunting skills and allows them to survive later. The continuation of the 'playing' with prey into adulthood is just an ingrained habit that surfaces when they're comfortable. Just like they'll knead someone they love even though the action won't produce any milk like it did when they were kittens.

[Shroom Man 777]

For predators, killing is a necessary act to gain nutrition and ensure survival - like how sex is a necessary act to perpetuate the species. It makes sense for predators find pleasure in killing. It's no different from a cow being happy munching grass.

[open_sketchbook]

Or, to make the metaphor more relevant to us, we need to have sex to propagate the species, and gosh, ain't sex fun? It's not strange at all the evolution would make something a creature has to do to live press the brain-buttons that cause feelings of happiness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Conceded.

It doesn't excuse their behaviour, but my other points still stand. You'd hate to be a chicken, after all.

You concede too soon.

In fact, there is no physical way for the polar bear to consume everything it killed. Occam's Razor would suggest that these polar bears are killing for their own amusement.

Occams razor is nothing compared to optimal foraging theory. Moreover, you are not applying occams razor, you are projecting in an almost freudian way.

The bear lacks the cognitive capacity to count. if it finds an easy source of a lot of food it will take the opportunity and eat to satiation. Animals will typically take the largest prey item they can manage given a unit of effort. In the case of a bear, they will kill multiple seals in the hope that they can come back later and scavenge if the pickings get slim. Most the time they are lucky to get one seal.

Killer whales have been seen torturing their food before they eat it. Several of them would capture a single seal and spend their time knocking it about, hurtling it from the water with their flukes. The seal is still quite alive through most of this treatment.

They are training their offspring in skills they will need in life when they do this. They also seem to torture whale caves and only part of them, but this makes perfect sense if you think about it. The whale calf only has certain parts that the orca can eat, fleshy bits like flukes or the tongue. That is because unlike a shark, they cannot rotate their maxilla to actually get large chunks from the body. However what they can harvest is a huge amount of flesh from the other structures. Eventually though they have to abandon the kill the sharks.

Moreover they probably dont have a concept of the feelings of their prey items. If they have Theory of Mind at all, it probably does not apply to their prey, they probably dont abstract that far.

group of captive chimpanzees have been documented as playing a game of using bread to lure chickens within their reach. Then they poke the chickens with sharp objects. Not to kill them, but to hurt them.

Do they make the sharp sticks for this? You are aware that chimps regularly eat meat in the wild and that they would pass down the skills required to make the necessary tools (and yes, they do use weapons with hunting if i remember properly) even if they dont use them, correct?

Without actually studying the chimps in question without knowing the detail, you are committing an appeal to ignorance.

Release it, only to catch it again. This is out-and-out cruelty perpetrated for the cat's amusement.

Or they are practicing their hunting skills when not hungry.

All of the organisms above take pleasure in teh above activities. However they feel that pleasure because the activities must be done in order to ensure their survival and they have evolved an incentive in the reward center of their brain. The pleasure we get from say... a rodeo, is an exaptation. It is something our brains associate with something pleasurable and necessary, the capture of food. We are not obtaining pleasure (usually) from the animals suffering. That (the suffering) is a consequence yes, but it is not what we take pleasure in (again, usually).

[Sea Skimmer]

Do they make the sharp sticks for this? You are aware that chimps regularly eat meat in the wild and that they would pass down the skills required to make the necessary tools (and yes, they do use weapons with hunting if i remember properly) even if they dont use them, correct?

Yeah they do, it’s a pretty recent discovery but certain chimp populations make spears and use them to stab into holes in trees to kill and pull out small primates, which are then eaten. The chimps sharpen branches with their teeth to fashion the weapons. As far as we can tell chimps don’t deliberately teach other chimps how to do this or how to make other tools, but they are great observational learners so it doesn't matter.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah they do, it’s a pretty recent discovery but certain chimp populations make spears and use them to stab into holes in trees to kill and pull out small primates, which are then eaten. The chimps sharpen branches with their teeth to fashion the weapons. As far as we can tell chimps don’t deliberately teach other chimps how to do this or how to make other tools, but they are great observational learners so it doesn't matter.

As far as I remember there is actual teaching going on. I could be wrong though, I have little interest in the bahavior of mammals that is not sexual conflict or predation so I dont often read the primatology lit.

[Mayabird]

IIRC it's mother-daughter teaching, because females are the ones who are spearing the bushbabies and they're teaching their girls how to get the protein. The boys for some damn reason just don't care.