Morality and animals labeled as "pests"

[Alyrium Denryle]

How are insects anything other than pure biological machines? They don't really have any cognitive capacity.

It's the same as "killing" a CNC milling machine.

They actually are capable of learning and perceive pain in some fashion or another.

How about neural networks? Build one into a car and you have something that is both capable of learning and "perceives" "pain".

By that logic once we have sentient AI (if that is possible) then human learning and perception of pain dont matter.

Biological and mechanical systems are not analogous in this respect.

You dont have to be a Jain or anything, killing insects is often unavoidable and very often necessary. That having been said it is preferable not to kill them if you dont have to. Cooking ants as they leave the nest is a pretty twisted thing to do if you are old enough to know better. If only because it proves you are a sadist

[Molyneux]

How are insects anything other than pure biological machines? They don't really have any cognitive capacity.

It's the same as "killing" a CNC milling machine.

They actually are capable of learning and perceive pain in some fashion or another.

How about neural networks? Build one into a car and you have something that is both capable of learning and "perceives" "pain".

If we were capable of creating an artificial intelligence that could be meaningfully be said to perceive pain, then you would absolutely be ethically obligated to avoid causing unnecessary pain to that intelligence.

[Hamstray]

If we were capable of creating an artificial intelligence that could be meaningfully be said to perceive pain, then you would absolutely be ethically obligated to avoid causing unnecessary pain to that intelligence.

What constitutes as "meaningful" perception of pain?

By that logic once we have sentient AI (if that is possible) then human learning and perception of pain dont matter.

Given your hint that you say that there is any doubt in the possibility of sentient AI, I assume your definition of sentience is absolute rather than relative. So, what amount of qualia (if exists) is sufficient to label an entity as "sentient"?

[Molyneux]

If we were capable of creating an artificial intelligence that could be meaningfully be said to perceive pain, then you would absolutely be ethically obligated to avoid causing unnecessary pain to that intelligence.

What constitutes as "meaningful" perception of pain?

For any definition of "meaningful" that both parties can agree on, my point stands. If pain is being perceived, then there exists an ethical obligation to avoid unnecessary causing of pain.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Given your hint that you say that there is any doubt in the possibility of sentient AI, I assume your definition of sentience is absolute rather than relative. So, what amount of qualia (if exists) is sufficient to label an entity as "sentient"?

I should have specified. Sapient AI. As in, an AI with a human-like level of cognitive and emotional capacity. The same can be said of any AI. If it has a cognitive and emotional capacity similar to that of a lizard, then for all intents and purposes they should be treated the same.

[Hamstray]

I should have specified. Sapient AI. As in, an AI with a human-like level of cognitive and emotional capacity. The same can be said of any AI. If it has a cognitive and emotional capacity similar to that of a lizard, then for all intents and purposes they should be treated the same.

Hold on, I think were talking at cross-purposes here. The question for me being at what level of sentience something has is connected to what moral obligations you are to have towards it. What amount of cognitive capacity warrants for not subjecting it to unnecessary cruelty? If someone defines sapience as his threshold on ethical matters then fine by me, that's a clearly defined lower limit not conflicting with my personal interests. I just don't think sentience is a solid enough concept to base your ethics on.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I should have specified. Sapient AI. As in, an AI with a human-like level of cognitive and emotional capacity. The same can be said of any AI. If it has a cognitive and emotional capacity similar to that of a lizard, then for all intents and purposes they should be treated the same.

Hold on, I think were talking at cross-purposes here. The question for me being at what level of sentience something has is connected to what moral obligations you are to have towards it. What amount of cognitive capacity warrants for not subjecting it to unnecessary cruelty? If someone defines sapience as his threshold on ethical matters then fine by me, that's a clearly defined lower limit not conflicting with my personal interests. I just don't think sentience is a solid enough concept to base your ethics on.

It isnt, save as a proxy for the ability to feel certain morally relevant emotions such as suffering (pain generally but the smarter an animal is the more abstract this can become) and pleasure (same thing as above, can be abstract with smarter organisms). Constraints on what one can do to an organism and what it takes to justify those things flow directly from this.

For example, crushing a mosquito can prevent you getting a disease and suffering, while the insect dies instantly and feels no pain, and this situation is pretty much unavoidable. Thus the action is not morally problematic. If on the other hand if you grab a beetle and torture it (say, by making it look like the hellraiser guy) just because you think it is funny this is problematic. Why? Because you can easily derive your enjoyment without causing the suffering of said beetle by watching a good comedy show.

[Korvan]

As a kid I definitely strayed into morally problematic grounds regarding insects. As a young kid, while playing in the woods around my home, I somehow ended up falling into a large anthill and was swarmed, suffering numerous bits. Nothing serious, but still very traumatic. I developed a burning hatred for that particular species of ant, fairly large with red head and thorax and a black abdomen. Even to this day, seeing that type of ant brings about dark and angry feelings, though similar sized ants with black head and thorax with red abdomens don't cause the same feelings.

Over a period of about three years, I waged a campaign of genocide on those ants in the 10 acre woods around my home. They were the dominant species of the area and very aggressive as I saw them cut down any other type of ant they would come across. During those years, I would attack the nests with axe and shovel and then burn what was left with gasoline. Somehow I avoided burning down the woods. Looking back I do marvel a bit at the lack of supervision that allowed an 8 to 10 year old to march into the woods with such tools of destruction. It was the '70's but still!

It got to be a bit of an obsession as I could not pass by a rotting stump or fence post without giving it a good kick to see what, if anything would come swarming out. I was pretty thorough and eventually I could not find anymore nests. Checking back over the years, I noticed that the hills I cleaned out were never recolonized though other ant species are now more numerous. I do remember that while hate against those ants was the driving motivation behind my war, I did enjoy the attacks on the ants. Little boys do grow up, more or less, but I still go after pest insects with a certain relentlessness, just more poison and less fire these days.

[DudeGuyMan]

At the most basic level, I just don't grok a system that views the suffering of one unintelligent creature as having some sort of existential wrongness unto itself, but views the death of a million identical unintelligent creatures as no big deal.

Sure if your next door neighbor has a hobby consisting of torturing chickens to death while giggling you have every reason to be freaked right the fuck out. Because your neighbor is a fucking psycho. But I can't see myself going "Forget the fact that he's nuts, imagine the suffering of those poor chickens!" right as I bite into some KFC.

I mean they either have some intrinsic value as beings, or they don't. If they do, then snuffing them by the thousands or millions is fucked regardless of how it's done. If they don't, then who gives a shit about them? If you're a raving meat-is-murder type protesting the chicken factory, congratulations on being consistent. Otherwise I just don't see it.

[Molyneux]

At the most basic level, I just don't grok a system that views the suffering of one unintelligent creature as having some sort of existential wrongness unto itself, but views the death of a million identical unintelligent creatures as no big deal.

Sure if your next door neighbor has a hobby consisting of torturing chickens to death while giggling you have every reason to be freaked right the fuck out. Because your neighbor is a fucking psycho. But I can't see myself going "Forget the fact that he's nuts, imagine the suffering of those poor chickens!" right as I bite into some KFC.

I mean they either have some intrinsic value as beings, or they don't. If they do, then snuffing them by the thousands or millions is fucked regardless of how it's done. If they don't, then who gives a shit about them? If you're a raving meat-is-murder type protesting the chicken factory, congratulations on being consistent. Otherwise I just don't see it.

You keep using that word, "unintelligent". Exactly what do you think it means?
The problem of meat-eating is an ethical dilemma - but just because you see the necessity of killing and eating other animals does not justify the needless infliction of pain on those animals. Society may see the necessity of, say, killing a criminal - but generally it is done in as humane and painless a way as possible.

If you need to eat chickens, you need to eat chickens. If you have two ways of killing them, and one is less painful, then it is ethical to use the less painful method.

[Gramzamber]

What exactly is so strange about not wishing to inflict undue suffering on a creature even if it is a pest, or we intend to eat it?
There is nothing gained by torturing an animal, treating it like garbage during it's life or letting it die a slow death and yes I'd rather my KFC lived as content a life as it could and wasn't put through needless suffering.

[JointStrikeFighter]

How are insects anything other than pure biological machines? They don't really have any cognitive capacity.

It's the same as "killing" a CNC milling machine.

They actually are capable of learning and perceive pain in some fashion or another.

If we take the CNC milling machine to include its software than it too can learn by running math to calculate the most efficient manner in which to do its job. You could even argue that its diagnostic sensors and triggered responses construe pain. Doesn't mean that it is alive.

[loomer]

Chiming in as just a general thing, I have never seen it as valid to cause unnecessary suffering for a pest or any other animal. My parents were the same - if they saw a dying animal that'd been hit by a car or attacked by a dog or whatever, that was obviously a goner, they'd do right by it and end that sooner with whatever means they felt best given the circumstances.

I do the same. My cat brings in a mouse? I take it off him, and either break the neck or crush it with a hammer (massive trauma to the brain, as far as I can tell, would be one of the closest things to a quick and painless deaths.) while it's still in shock from being tormented by a cat. Mouse in a trap? Same deal. And I nearly always feel awful about it.

I fuck up hunting and don't take a roo out cleanly, and my first action is always to finish it as cleanly as possible. Same deal if the guys I go with fuck it up and don't act quickly - a wounded roo is both suffering and dangerous for us. Some people might argue that the hunting itself is unnecessary, and maybe they're right, but I still hold by my ethics while I'm at it. Strangely though, roos don't invoke the same sadness as rats and mice. Maybe because it's not so horribly uneven.

[Molyneux]

Chiming in as just a general thing, I have never seen it as valid to cause unnecessary suffering for a pest or any other animal. My parents were the same - if they saw a dying animal that'd been hit by a car or attacked by a dog or whatever, that was obviously a goner, they'd do right by it and end that sooner with whatever means they felt best given the circumstances.

I do the same. My cat brings in a mouse? I take it off him, and either break the neck or crush it with a hammer (massive trauma to the brain, as far as I can tell, would be one of the closest things to a quick and painless deaths.) while it's still in shock from being tormented by a cat. Mouse in a trap? Same deal. And I nearly always feel awful about it.

I fuck up hunting and don't take a roo out cleanly, and my first action is always to finish it as cleanly as possible. Same deal if the guys I go with fuck it up and don't act quickly - a wounded roo is both suffering and dangerous for us. Some people might argue that the hunting itself is unnecessary, and maybe they're right, but I still hold by my ethics while I'm at it. Strangely though, roos don't invoke the same sadness as rats and mice. Maybe because it's not so horribly uneven.

If you don't mind my asking, why exactly do you hunt kangaroos?

[Lusankya]

Some places have too many kangaroos, and hunting them brings down the population.

Also, kangaroos are delicious.

[Lagmonster]

As an aside, 'pest' can be a flexible term. I've heard every type of producer and agriculturalist inappropriately use the word to describe pretty much every living thing - fungus, bacteria, plant, animal, and anything in between - that he personally is not selling for profit. And he wants to kill them via poison, guns, heavy machinery, domestic animals, and his own boots if necessary.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How are insects anything other than pure biological machines? They don't really have any cognitive capacity.

It's the same as "killing" a CNC milling machine.

They actually are capable of learning and perceive pain in some fashion or another.

If we take the CNC milling machine to include its software than it too can learn by running math to calculate the most efficient manner in which to do its job. You could even argue that its diagnostic sensors and triggered responses construe pain. Doesn't mean that it is alive.

No. Running an algorithm is different from having a primary consciousness. Now, if you have a machine that did these things and had a programmed primary consciousness, you would have a point.

[JointStrikeFighter]

How is an ant NOT running off a [chemical] algorithm?

[Alyrium Denryle]

How is an ant NOT running off a [chemical] algorithm?

Dont be a dumbass. Humans and just about everything else runs on a chemical algorithm as you would describe one. It is just bigger and it actually feels things. Suffers. Should we disregard the suffering of everything? That is where the logic you are pushing leads.

An ant may or may not actually perceive pain in a way that is ethnically meaningful, which is why I dont cry overmuch when someone sprinkles RAID along their doorstep. A computer which has no perceptions at all (and we know they dont, because we have yet to program a computer that can actually feel emotions, only use a program that tells it to let us know something it senses has been damaged). Once we build a computer that can actually suffer then it should be afforded all of the moral consideration we would to an organism of equivalent capacity to do so.

Again, dont be a dumbfuck. I know this can be hard for you at times, or at least you enjoy being deliberately obtuse, but it gets old very quickly.

[Molyneux]

Some places have too many kangaroos, and hunting them brings down the population.

Also, kangaroos are delicious.

Those are the two best justifications that I have ever heard for hunting. Hunt away!

[Lusankya]

I bet that if the bald eagle was as delicious and numerous as the kangaroo and the emu, then you would be able to eat your coat of arms for dinner as well!


Australia also has one island that we introduced koalas to because we are idiots, and now we have to continually cull them because otherwise they'll eat all of the koala-edible leaves and starve to death.

Unfortunately we can't eat them, because koalas taste like shit.

We can't catch them and reintroduce them to areas where there aren't enough koalas either, because the original population was too small, and now they're all inbred and full of genetic deficiencies.

[loomer]

If you don't mind my asking, why exactly do you hunt kangaroos?

As Lusy said, we have too many kangaroos in some areas and they are delicious, so it's pest control in a sense. On top of that, I find it an enjoyable past time and, since we eat the roos, saves on our limited finances (me and all the guys I go with are actually pretty damn poor. I think only one of us makes enough to actually pay tax).

My thoughts on hunting are basically just 'eat what you hunt, don't go overboard, and don't go after anything that's having trouble.'

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you don't mind my asking, why exactly do you hunt kangaroos?

As Lusy said, we have too many kangaroos in some areas and they are delicious, so it's pest control in a sense. On top of that, I find it an enjoyable past time and, since we eat the roos, saves on our limited finances (me and all the guys I go with are actually pretty damn poor. I think only one of us makes enough to actually pay tax).

My thoughts on hunting are basically just 'eat what you hunt, don't go overboard, and don't go after anything that's having trouble.'

You see, after the Australians killed every predator that was not a crocodile (not for lack of trying) or a dingo (pretty much all of their marsupial megapredators), kangaroo populations have exploded, particularly because they like the patchwork mosaic of forest and open land (read: The fragmented agricultural/pasture landscape) that non-desert australia is comprised of these days. They are pretty much hopping marsupial deer, and the only way to keep them from eating every plant within browsing and grazing reach is to shoot them.

[Purple]

Now after reading this thread I have one conclusion.
It seems to me that many people seem to agree that if a creature can feel pain and suffering than we are somehow morally obliged to act so that we do not cause any suffering to it more than the bare minimum that is unavoidable to reap some benefit off it or prevent it from doing damage to us.
Am I correct in my conclusions so far?


If that is the case I must ask you why?
I mean, I have thought about it. I gave my best to try and understand this strange opinion on morality and I honestly can't. Its just beyond me.
So if anyone can reasonably explain why we should expend resources to minimize harm to animals unless it brings some real benefit to us? (like the example that free range meat tastes better and is healthier)

If it brings no tangible benefit to us (such as the aforementioned taste example does) than why should we even consider it? Realistically it makes no difference to us if a stray dog or cat is killed via injection, gunshot or via being bashed into a wall, excluding the resources expended for the bullet or to wash off the blood splatter. If something needs to be done it needs to be done and I think that the choice of methods should be based upon what method is cheapest and most convenient for the user not some intangible benefit for the creature you are killing anyway.

If the thing is going to die anyway there is not much more evil you can do to it. So what is the point of having any feelings over it?


PS. If my post leaves you completely and utterly confused to the point of just looking around baffled and asking your self WTH? Than I have managed to make you feel like I do about the point in question.

[salm]

So if anyone can reasonably explain why we should expend resources to minimize harm to animals unless it brings some real benefit to us? (like the example that free range meat tastes better and is healthier)

Well, why do we want to reduce harm to other humans? I mean, it would be quite convenient to keep slaves to do all the work for us. After all we´d have quite a large benefit of keeping slaves.

If it brings no tangible benefit to us (such as the aforementioned taste example does) than why should we even consider it? Realistically it makes no difference to us if a stray dog or cat is killed via injection, gunshot or via being bashed into a wall, excluding the resources expended for the bullet or to wash off the blood splatter. If something needs to be done it needs to be done and I think that the choice of methods should be based upon what method is cheapest and most convenient for the user not some intangible benefit for the creature you are killing anyway.

You see, it´s not about the difference that it makes to us, it´s about the difference that it makes to them. I have no idea how this concept can be hard to grasp but obviously you misunderstood it from it´s root.