crank wrote:
Thanks Mr Samsa, great response, thanks.

Question though please:
If I am remembering the Baldwin effect correctly, it is like in order to learn something you have to match some kind of pattern, then physically the brain is prewired with a pattern that is close to what is needed for learning X, so that through evolution, a given organism doesn't need to change as much to get to X than another that isn't prewired as closely. Did I mangle that badly? So, how is all learning a subset? So much of what at least humans learn is abstract, say, or even remembering images, how do you fit the prewiring to this? Because we are prewired with areas that are designed for that kind of learning, is it as general as that?

NineBerry wrote:"Suffering pain" is not connected to having a nervous system. The "suffering" part requires actually consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no conscious perception of pain. The nervous cells that identify and transmit damage/heat/etc are then only part of a non-conscious algorithmic system just as NPCs are. Elaborate NPCs in computer systems also have receptors that identify damage and danger and set a status within the NPCs systems, causing the NPC to be "alerted" or "fearful" or "angry".

LIFE wrote:I know so many people who kill spiders, flies, bugs, mosquitoes etc.
And when I ask them why they basically all say the same thing:

"They're annoying, disturbing, disgusting, dangerous...."

Whenever I see them first I try to rescue them but I often get ridiculed for my actions.
Sometimes I try to explain why I don't think killing is an option but in most cases I don't bother because it's of no use to try and convince them anyways.

I even know of some people who claim that insects aren't animals

Now why is that? Once animals get bigger, furrier or the likes they usually don't get killed and are just being brought outside.

Why all this disgust and unfeeling cold-heartedness towards those (often quite useful!) insects?

Mind you, I'm not a treehugger nor do I go around preaching that they should survive but I simply do not get it.

kiore wrote:Where I live mosquitoes threaten my health and life and are in fact the most dangerous animals in Africa..
For that same reason spiders are welcome (I know they're not insects, humour me here).

SPMaximus wrote:I only kill mosquitos that fly around my face and stick their fangs into me, never kill spiders, the little ones are kinda cute, and we dont have spiders that are bigger then a finger nail here

Other insects i dont bother with

Last year i did massacre a bunch of wasps though, they had a huuuuuuge nest built on the other side of the wall to my room, and they came into my room through a small hole a couple of cables are pulled through, before i eradicated the nest i had collected about 50-60 wasps that died in my room, one stung me on the thigh when i laid down in bed, and another on the top of the foot when sitting in front of the computer (happened to be barefoot)

NineBerry wrote:Tree huggers....

CdeLosada wrote:
I was following your line of reasoning OK up to this point. Are you sure about this? The way I see it is that pain is simply a very effective mechanism for animals to preserve their health and life. Consciousness may have indeed arisen as a consequence of the likely advantage gained by our being able to accurately read and anticipate the intentions, moods, etc. of the fellow members of our highly social species (what better way to be precise in our reading than being able ourselves to experience everything we want to read in others—thus we become fully aware of our own intentions, fears, motivations, desires, etc.; hence consciousness. Or some such thing..., if I remember the theory correctly—I think that's what you were referring to before, anyway), so why would it be at all necessary for the pain mechanism to work? I don't quite see the connection you make. There is no reason to believe that we alone avoid danger by experiencing pain. Let's consider a newborn baby, for instance: It can hardly be thought to be conscious, but it most assuredly feels pain, doesn't it?

LIFE wrote:What does the vegan video have to do with anything?

NineBerry wrote:"Suffering pain" is not connected to having a nervous system. The "suffering" part requires actually consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no conscious perception of pain. The nervous cells that identify and transmit damage/heat/etc are then only part of a non-conscious algorithmic system just as NPCs are. Elaborate NPCs in computer systems also have receptors that identify damage and danger and set a status within the NPCs systems, causing the NPC to be "alerted" or "fearful" or "angry".

#39 What about insects? Do they have rights too?
Before considering the issue of rights, let us first address the question "What about insects?". Strictly speaking, insects are small invertebrate animals of the class Insecta, having an adult stage characterized by three pairs of legs, a segmented body with three major divisions, and usually two pairs of wings. We'll adopt the looser definition, which includes similar invertebrate animals such as spiders, centipedes, and ticks.

Insects have a ganglionic nervous system, in contrast to the central nervous system of vertebrates. Such a system is characterized by local aggregates of neurons, called ganglia, that are associated with, and specialized for, the body segment with which they are co-located. There are interconnections between ganglia but these connections function not so much as a global integrating pathway, but rather for local segmental coordination. For example, the waves of leg motion that propagate along the body of a centipede are mediated by the intersegmental connections.

In some species the cephalic ganglia are large and complex enough to support very complex behavior (e.g., the lobster and octopus). The cuttlefish (not an insect but another invertebrate with a ganglionic nervous system) is claimed by some to be about as intelligent as a dog.

Insects are capable of primitive learning and do exhibit what many would characterize as intelligence. Spiders are known for their skills and craftiness; whether this can all be dismissed as instinct is arguable. Certainly, bees can learn in a limited way. When offered a reward from a perch of a certain color, they return first to perches of that color. They also learn the location of food and transmit that information to their colleagues. The learning, however, tends to be highly specialized and applicable to only limited domains.

In addition to a primitive mental life as described above, there is some evidence that insects can experience pain and suffering. The earthworm nervous system, for example, secretes an opiate substance when the earthworm is injured. Similar responses are seen in vertebrates and are generally accepted to be a mechanism for the attenuation of pain. On the other hand, the opiates are also implicated in functions not associated with analgesia, such as thermoregulation and appetite control. Nevertheless, the association of secretion with tissue injury is highly suggestive. Earthworms also wriggle quite vigorously when impaled on a hook. In possible opposition to this are other observations. For example, the abdomen of a feeding wasp can be clipped off and the head may go on sucking (presumably in no distress?).

Singer quotes three criteria for deciding if an organism has the capacity to suffer from pain:
1) there are behavioral indications,
2) there is an appropriate nervous system, and
3) there is an evolutionary usefulness for the experience of pain.
These criteria seem to satisfied for insects, if only in a primitive way.

Now we are equipped to tackle the issue of insect rights. First, one might argue that the issue is not so compelling as for other animals because industries are not built around the exploitation of insects. But this is untrue; large industries are built around honey production, silk production, and cochineal/carmine production, and, of course, mass insect death results from our use of insecticides. Even if the argument were true, it should not prevent us from attempting to be consistent in the application of our principles to all animals. Insects are a part of the Animal Kingdom and some special arguments would be required to exclude them from the general AR argument.

Some would draw a line at some level of complexity of the nervous system, e.g., only animals capable of operant conditioning need be enfranchised. Others may quarrel with this line and place it elsewhere. Some may postulate a scale of life with an ascending capacity to feel pain and suffer. They might also mark a cut-off on the scale, below which rights are not actively asserted. Is the cut-off above insects and the lower invertebrates? Or should there be no cut-off? This is one of the issues still being actively debated in the AR community.

People who strive to live without cruelty will attempt to push the line back as far as possible, giving the benefit of the doubt where there is doubt. Certainly, one can avoid unnecessary cruelty to insects.

#41 There is some evidence of consciousness in insects; aren't you descending to absurdity to tell people not to kill insects?

Enfranchising insects does not mean it is never justifiable to kill them. As with all threats to a being, the rule of self-defense applies. If insects are threatening one's well-being in a nontrivial way, AR philosophy would not assert that it is wrong to eliminate them.

Pesticides and herbicides are often used for mass destruction of insect populations. While this might be defended on the self-defense principle, one should be aware of the significant adverse impact on the environment, on other non-threatening animals, and indeed on our own health. (Refer to question #59 for more on the use of insecticides.)
It is not absurd to attempt to minimize the amount of suffering that we inflict or cause. --DG

NineBerry wrote:
There's a difference between "feeling pain" and "suffering pain".

NineBerry wrote:

CdeLosada wrote:
I was following your line of reasoning OK up to this point. Are you sure about this? The way I see it is that pain is simply a very effective mechanism for animals to preserve their health and life. Consciousness may have indeed arisen as a consequence of the likely advantage gained by our being able to accurately read and anticipate the intentions, moods, etc. of the fellow members of our highly social species (what better way to be precise in our reading than being able ourselves to experience everything we want to read in others—thus we become fully aware of our own intentions, fears, motivations, desires, etc.; hence consciousness. Or some such thing..., if I remember the theory correctly—I think that's what you were referring to before, anyway), so why would it be at all necessary for the pain mechanism to work? I don't quite see the connection you make. There is no reason to believe that we alone avoid danger by experiencing pain. Let's consider a newborn baby, for instance: It can hardly be thought to be conscious, but it most assuredly feels pain, doesn't it?

There's a difference between "feeling pain" and "suffering pain".

LIFE wrote:What does the vegan video have to do with anything?

NineBerry wrote:

LIFE wrote:What does the vegan video have to do with anything?

It's funny