Gyroscopic Investing

I think those stats in the original post are misleading.  Humans are definitely the most deadly creature.

http://www.numberofabortions.com

... M

Mountaineer wrote: I think those stats in the original post are misleading.  Humans are definitely the most deadly creature.

http://www.numberofabortions.com

We don't count animal abortions (especially the hundreds of millions of chicken eggs aborted every week), so why should we with humans?  An embryo is NOT a human being.  Spin it all you want, but you can't convince anyone otherwise.  A human is an animal evolved from the great apes and all that -- oh wait...

Anyway, the number of human abortions is .15% of the US population by my calculation.  Where's the fire???

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I think those stats in the original post are misleading.  Humans are definitely the most deadly creature.

http://www.numberofabortions.com

We don't count animal abortions (especially the hundreds of millions of chicken eggs aborted every week), so why should we with humans?  An embryo is NOT a human being.  Spin it all you want, but you can't convince anyone otherwise.

Anyway, the number of human abortions is .15% of the US population by my calculation.  Where's the fire???

You are completely entitled to your opinion.  However, I put humans on a far higher plane than chicken eggs.  YMMV.  Also, I think one murder is one too many.  Thus to me, even one abortion is a very large fire as I value EVERY human life.  Again, YMMV.  If you are able to prove that human life begins at some point other than conception, I'd like to see the factual data.  Perhaps this is of interest?  http://www.slate.com/articles/video/vid ... video.html

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: You are completely entitled to your opinion.  However, I put humans on a far higher plane than chicken eggs.  YMMV.  Also, I think one murder is one too many.  Thus to me, even one abortion is a very large fire as I value EVERY human life.  Again, YMMV.  If you are able to prove that human life begins at some point other than conception, I'd like to see the factual data.  Perhaps this is of interest?  http://www.slate.com/articles/video/vid ... video.html

So that's how you rationalize it.  It's "murder" if you masturbate, have a miscarraige or abort a microscope zygote but never you mind that millions of other life forms perish every second of every day by neglect, starvation, war or painfully being eaten alive.  That's certainly fine for your operating worldview, but it's rather HYPOCRITICAL in the aggregate.  If you had your way it seems to me you would ONLY save proto-humans and let everything else "float or perish" because they're "just not that important".  Fortunately, humans are vastly outnumbered by other life forms and humans are just not that important to the macro-web of life -- if anything, they're overwhelmingly destructive to it.

Sperm and eggs are indeed alive.  I have no problem with killing them because they're "just not that important".

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: You are completely entitled to your opinion.  However, I put humans on a far higher plane than chicken eggs.  YMMV.  Also, I think one murder is one too many.  Thus to me, even one abortion is a very large fire as I value EVERY human life.  Again, YMMV.  If you are able to prove that human life begins at some point other than conception, I'd like to see the factual data.  Perhaps this is of interest?  http://www.slate.com/articles/video/vid ... video.html

So that's how you rationalize it.  It's "murder" if you masturbate, have a miscarraige or abort a microscope zygote but never you mind that millions of other life forms perish every second of every day by neglect, starvation, war or painfully being eaten alive.  That's certainly fine for your operating worldview, but it's rather HYPOCRITICAL in the aggregate.  If you had your way it seems to me you would ONLY save proto-humans and let everything else "float or perish" because they're "just not that important".  Fortunately, humans are vastly outnumbered by other life forms and humans are just not that important to the macro-web of life -- if anything, they're overwhelmingly destructive to it.

Sperm and eggs are indeed alive.  I have no problem with killing them because they're "just not that important".

Your argument is, politely said, ridiculous, and exceeding uncaring about your fellow man.  To the best of my knowledge, human sperm and human eggs cannot reproduce on their own - thus are not alive in the sense of sentient humans or animals.  On the positive side, your argument is an excellent example of the direction this country is headed.  The end result of not valuing human life is human extinction ... which I'm guessing would be a good thing in your worldview. 

... M

Mountaineer wrote: Your argument is, politely said, ridiculous, and exceeding uncaring about your fellow man.  To the best of my knowledge, human sperm and human eggs cannot reproduce on their own - thus are not alive in the sense of sentient humans or animals.  On the positive side, your argument is an excellent example of the direction this country is headed.  The end result of not valuing human life is human extinction ... which I'm guessing would be a good thing in your worldview. 

So now you bring in sentience.  Didn't we already have this argument before?  In fact, I recall I'm the one that originally brought sentience and consciousness up to delineate between merely being alive in a zygote or embyronic state and being a proto-human baby.  So by your definition now, its perfectly okay to abort sperm, eggs or a non-sentient zygote or embryo because its not alive.  But that's ridiculous too!  Anything that is alive...  IS alive and is conscious, but it shouldn't be the practical criteria for defining murder, otherwise we'd all be guilty.

You'd be more convincing with the anti-abortion argument if you weren't such a hyporcrite about valuing human aliveness above everything else that is alive in our complex web of life.  But if you think evolution is bullshit, so it goes that you don't consider the other 99% of the life forms inhabitating the planet (and probably universe) as being important either.  It's definitely a peculiar sense of narrow anthropogenic arrogance that can only come from a religio-ideological perspective, because guess what?  IT'S AT ODDS WITH OBJECTIVE REALITY.

P.S.  Rhetorical question because I know it doesn't, but how does your "God" explain this reality: http://felixonline.co.uk/science/6121/1 ... -on-earth/

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Your argument is, politely said, ridiculous, and exceeding uncaring about your fellow man.  To the best of my knowledge, human sperm and human eggs cannot reproduce on their own - thus are not alive in the sense of sentient humans or animals.  On the positive side, your argument is an excellent example of the direction this country is headed.  The end result of not valuing human life is human extinction ... which I'm guessing would be a good thing in your worldview. 

So now you bring in sentience.  Didn't we already have this argument before?  In fact, I recall I'm the one that originally brought sentience and consciousness up to delineate between merely being alive in a zygote or embyronic state and being a proto-human baby.  So by your definition now, its perfectly okay to abort sperm, eggs or a non-sentient zygote or embryo because its not alive.  But that's ridiculous too!  Anything that is alive...  IS alive and is conscious, but it shouldn't be the practical criteria for defining murder, otherwise we'd all be guilty.

You'd be more convincing with the anti-abortion argument if you weren't such a hyporcrite about valuing human aliveness above everything else that is alive in our complex web of life.  But if you think evolution is bullshit, so it goes that you don't consider the other 99% of the life forms inhabitating the planet (and probably universe) as being important either.  It's definitely a peculiar sense of narrow anthropogenic arrogance that can only come from a religio-ideological perspective, because guess what?  IT'S AT ODDS WITH OBJECTIVE REALITY.

P.S.  Rhetorical question because I know it doesn't, but how does your "God" explain this reality: http://felixonline.co.uk/science/6121/1 ... -on-earth/

I do value human life above all other life forms, and I'm very thankful our Creator saw fit to create me as a human being.  I also value being a good steward of God's creation. 

As for the P.S. question, I don't know what your question is.  God created it all so what is there to explain?  Why do you think God created you - how would your god explain your existence?  Who is your god?

Peace bro, I hope you have a marvelous Ascension Sunday. 

... M

There's definitely an important distinction between life and consciousness/sentience.

As far back as ancient Greece, philosophers like Aristotle were making distinctions between plants, animals and humans.

I don't share the idea that human life is more valuable than (other) animal life, and really don't understand it.  But vegetables are also alive, and we have to eat something.

jafs wrote:I don't share the idea that human life is more valuable than (other) animal life, and really don't understand it.

Not wanting to eat animals is one thing, but do you really believe that all animal life is equal?  If you saw a shark eating a person, you'd do nothing?

I see no reason to think that human beings are inherently superior to other animals, and actually a fair number of reasons to think that we have more of a destructive effect on the world than they do.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to save a human life, but I'd also want to save other animal lives.  And, people kill a lot more other animals than vice-versa, I believe.

A quick search finds that humans kill 56 billion animals each year - the chart above shows mosquitos, the most deadly animal, killing 725,000 humans each year.

And yet, the existence of carnivorism means that some animals have no choice but to kill other animals--usually to eat them alive, in fact. Even plants, which lack consciousness, vigorously compete with other plants for nutrients, sometimes killing them in the process. Nature is not a particularly non-violent place. That's not to say that minimizing the suffering that you personally cause isn't a noble goal, but to a certain extent pursuing this goal is itself a counter-argument against the position that humans are no different or more valuable than that of any other kind of animal. No other animal engages in such a practice. Only us humans will voluntarily abstain from destroying and eating other forms of life on ethical grounds that we are perfectly capable of killing and eating.

Yes, there is violence in nature.

And, yes, other animals seem compelled by instinct to eat animals.

And, also yes, the fact that we can make choices (to some degree) gives us a freedom and power that other animals seem to lack.  I didn't say we weren't "different", just not "superior".

But, that's a double-edged sword - we also created the atomic bomb.

So, it's not at all clear that being able to make more choices is superior, especially if/when we make destructive choices.  From a quick search, about 3% of people worldwide make the choice to be vegetarians - a very small percentage.

The fact that we are omnivores implies that our natural diet involves a certain amount of both plants and animals. To that effect, it's not surprising that few people make the choice to become 100% vegetarians. Equally few people people make the choice to be 100% carnivores--probably even fewer in fact because with low-quality modern meat it might kill you quickly!

jafs wrote: I see no reason to think that human beings are inherently superior to other animals, and actually a fair number of reasons to think that we have more of a destructive effect on the world than they do.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to save a human life, but I'd also want to save other animal lives.  And, people kill a lot more other animals than vice-versa, I believe.

A quick search finds that humans kill 56 billion animals each year - the chart above shows mosquitos, the most deadly animal, killing 725,000 humans each year.

This is the Obama philosophy. We should all apologize to the animals for being so human towards them. It's all our fault.

Pointedstick wrote: And yet, the existence of carnivorism means that some animals have no choice but to kill other animals--usually to eat them alive, in fact. Even plants, which lack consciousness, vigorously compete with other plants for nutrients, sometimes killing them in the process. Nature is not a particularly non-violent place. That's not to say that minimizing the suffering that you personally cause isn't a noble goal, but to a certain extent pursuing this goal is itself a counter-argument against the position that humans are no different or more valuable than that of any other kind of animal. No other animal engages in such a practice. Only us humans will voluntarily abstain from destroying and eating other forms of life on ethical grounds that we are perfectly capable of killing and eating.

I wouldn't go that far and say plants have no consciousness -- you don't know that for sure since you can't scientifically go into the mind of a plant and observe (there is anecdotal evidence that they do).  I think its more correct to say they are not self-aware since that is what we as arrogant humans tend to think of as consciousness, i.e. cogitio ergo sum.  If sentience is the power of perception by the senses requiring an emergent consiousness to process the data, then everything we think of as alive is indeed conscious.  But, only a relatively few mammals are self-aware so it's not a big stretcth to presume that the lower orders of life are not either.

Anyway, I've come to believe that since humans are indeed self-aware and have the capacity for rationalization and moral posturing, it is fully upon them to act unnaturally as guardians towards the rest of the animal kingdom.  Anything else would completely belie the superficial position that they are "special".  If they are "special" then they need to grow the fuck up and act like it.  That goes for both the religious believers as well as the Great Unwashed.  People just don't get that the contents of their minds determines their entire reality.  Look at how M won't even debate past a certain point.

jafs wrote: So, it's not at all clear that being able to make more choices is superior, especially if/when we make destructive choices.  From a quick search, about 3% of people worldwide make the choice to be vegetarians - a very small percentage.

That's because its at odd with physiology.  You must have long ago intentionally forgotten how extremely difficult -- if not virtually impossible -- it is to ignore instinct when you're craving a piece of steak.  The body is pretty smart about nudging you for what it requires if you don't sabotage the signaling with fructose (or intentional reprogramming).

Pointedstick wrote: The fact that we are omnivores implies that our natural diet involves a certain amount of both plants and animals. To that effect, it's not surprising that few people make the choice to become 100% vegetarians. Equally few people people make the choice to be 100% carnivores--probably even fewer in fact because with low-quality modern meat it might kill you quickly!

It won't.  But you'll be forcefully straining to poop out hard rocks and have all kinds of other organ ills on a steak and potatoes only diet like Staten Island Republicans eat.  Aren't we sooo glad Reub isn't one of those? 

Clearly, vegetables are critical to healthy living because you won't die on a 100% vegetable diet, just turn into a frail sarcopenic and ostereoporic old man.  But meat alone?  Fuhgettaboutit.

Reub wrote: A quick search finds that humans kill 56 billion animals each year - the chart above shows mosquitos, the most deadly animal, killing 725,000 humans each year.

I'm glady out edited that out jafs, because that would have been TOO easy.  That kind of hyperbolic bullshit detached from objective reality is why progressives are ignored, especially on AGW.  Have you read that skeptical environmentlist book yet?  It has more deflating examples like that.

MachineGhost wrote:

jafs wrote: So, it's not at all clear that being able to make more choices is superior, especially if/when we make destructive choices.  From a quick search, about 3% of people worldwide make the choice to be vegetarians - a very small percentage.

That's because its at odd with physiology.  You must have long ago intentionally forgotten how extremely difficult -- if not virtually impossible -- it is to ignore instinct when you're craving a piece of steak.  The body is pretty smart about nudging you for what it requires if you don't sabotage the signaling with fructose (or intentional reprogramming).

I found it very easy to become vegetarian, and didn't crave meat at all that I can remember.

MachineGhost wrote:

Reub wrote: A quick search finds that humans kill 56 billion animals each year - the chart above shows mosquitos, the most deadly animal, killing 725,000 humans each year.

I'm glady out edited that out jafs, because that would have been TOO easy.  That kind of hyperbolic bullshit detached from objective reality is why progressives are ignored, especially on AGW.  Have you read that skeptical environmentlist book yet?  It has more deflating examples like that.

Why do you think that's not accurate?

All I did was a quick google search and found that number.  It doesn't even include fish and other sea creatures.

If you have a source that contradicts it, I'll gladly look at it.

The source I found was the very first one with the search - one a few down puts the number higher, at 150 billion.  I'm not sure if the numbers include vivisection lab killings or not.

If we give up everything that makes us human can we get the mosquitos to forgive us?

jafs wrote: I found it very easy to become vegetarian, and didn't crave meat at all that I can remember.

Are you Ashkenazi by any chance?

jafs wrote: The source I found was the very first one with the search - one a few down puts the number higher, at 150 billion.  I'm not sure if the numbers include vivisection lab killings or not.

I perceived it as wild, distinct animal species.  If you literally count each CAFO chicken, cow, pig, fish separately killed each week as an "animals" rather than one aggregate animal per species, then yeah, I guess 56 billion a year is not that preposterous.  Just hyperbolic.  We don't refer to each individual human being as a pluralistic "humans".

MachineGhost wrote:

jafs wrote: The source I found was the very first one with the search - one a few down puts the number higher, at 150 billion.  I'm not sure if the numbers include vivisection lab killings or not.

I perceived it as wild, distinct animal species.  If you literally count each CAFO chicken, cow, pig, fish separately killed each week as an "animals" rather than one aggregate animal per species, then yeah, I guess 56 billion a year is not that preposterous.  Just hyperbolic.  We don't refer to each individual human being as a pluralistic "humans".

What about flies, mosquitos, scorpions, spiders, roaches, ants?  What about Myxozoa, aquatic parasitic animals smaller than 20 micrometers?  (Turns out those have the same rights as people!)